Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Widows (Pensions)

Mr. Gilmour: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will take steps to remove the condition barring from pension rights the widows of Regular officers who marry after they have become entitled to a pension.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. James Ramsden): No, Sir. Government pensions, like other remuneration, are given as a reward for service to the Crown. No new entitlement can arise once an officer has ceased to be actively employed by the Crown.

Mr. Gilmour: Is my right hon. Friend aware that widows similarly placed in Holland, Belgium, Sweden, France and the United States all get pensions? Since these pensions are a reward for services rendered, as my right hon. Friend's predecessor said, surely the date of marriage is immaterial.

Mr. Ramsden: On the Continent the whole basis of the service pension schemes differs from ours. I doubt whether it is valid to pick out individual differences of approach for comparison. As regards the latter part of the supplementary question, the point is that when the officer's service ceases he has earned entitlement, but if he has no wife at that point he cannot subsequently earn further entitlement for a wife or widow.

Coatbridge Engineering Factory

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will consult the management of Coatbridge Engineering Factory, with a view to making fuller use of these premises for the repair of War Department vehicles and other requirements, as this locality has been designated a growth area.

The Under-Secretary of State and Financial Secretary for War (Mr. Peter Kirk: We are already in touch with this firm, which has a substantial contract for the current year.

Mr. Dempsey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that recently this firm lost 100 jobs because the War Office stated that it had not the machinery to maintain modern war vehicles? Will he take steps to ensure that the factory will be made capable of doing such work, for it is in not only a development area but a growth area? The loss of 100 jobs in such a place causes considerable concern.

Mr. Kirk: I appreciate the difficulty, but the level of vehicle repairs of this kind is still falling because of the introduction of the vehicle casting policy, which involves the replacement of heavily worn vehicles by new ones instead of completely stripping and rebuilding old vehicles.

Royal Malta Artillery (Pay)

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for War what is the difference in the weekly pay of a Maltese gunner in the Royal Malta Artillery serving in the British Army of the Rhine and a Royal Artillery gunner also in the British Army of the Rhine; and what is the difference in pay of sergeants of each regiment serving in the British Army of the Rhine.

Mr. Kirk: My right hon. Friend explained the basis on which the pay of members of the Royal Malta Artillery serving in the British Army of the Rhine is calculated in his answer on 18th December, 1963. The actual sums payable vary according to length of service and trade classification. Since the details are somewhat complicated, I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing some examples.

Mr. Wall: Would it not be far more satisfactory and fairer if Maltese officers and men serving in B.A.O.R. were paid the same as their equivalents in the British Army?

Mr. Kirk: No, I do not think so. I think it is right that British soldiers should be paid under the United Kingdom Pay Code and the Maltese under their own. We adjust pay and allow-

TABLE SHOWING EXAMPLES OF THE RATES OF PAY FOR SOLDIERS OF THE ROYAL ARTILLERY AND THE ROYAL MALTA ARTILLERY WHEN SERVING IN THE BRITISH ARMY OF THE RHINE




Current Rates
Rates w.e.f. 1.4.64




s.
d.

s.
d.



Gunner Grade I Non-Tradesman, with 5 years service
R.A.
154
0
a week
164
6
a week



R.M.A.
150
6
a week
161
0
a week


Gunner Group B Class I Tradesman, with 5 years service
R.A.
154
0
a week
164
6
a week



R.M.A.
162
9
a week
173
3
a week


Gunner Group A Class I Tradesman, with 5 years service
R.A.
161
0
a week
171
6
a week



R.M.A.
169
9
a week
180
3
a week


Gunner Group B Class I Tradesman, with 8 years service
R.A.
182
0
a week
196
0
a week



R.M.A.
162
9
a week
173
3
a week


Sergeant Group B Tradesman, with 5 years service
R.A.
227
6
a week
241
6
a week



R.M.A.
232
9
a week
246
9
a week


Sergeant Group B Tradesman, with 8 years service
R.A.
255
6
a week
273
0
a week



R.M.A.
232
9
a week
246
9
a week


Sergeant Group A Tradesman, with 14 years service
R.A.
290
6
a week
311
6
a week



R.M.A.
248
6
a week
262
6
a week

Gunner B. C. Smith

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will reconsider the sentence of three years' imprisonment passed in August on Gunner B. C. Smith by a court martial as a result of an incident at Duisburg in June 1963, with a view to reducing his term of imprisonment.

Mr. Ramsden: The sentence was reviewed by the Army Council on 17th December, 1963, and no change was found to be justified. Under the Army Act, 1955, sentences are reconsidered at regular intervals and the next reconsideration of Gunner Smith's sentence will take place very shortly.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that this trouble arose over a birthday party for

ances to take account of where they are serving.

Mr. Wall: As these people are doing the same work, surely they should receive the same pay as part of the British Army in Germany.

Mr. Kirk: I cannot necessarily accept that. They enlist in the Royal Malta Artillery.

Following is the information:

my constituent at Duisburg and that he has always maintained that the trouble was started not by him but by a lance-bombardier and that the regimental sergeant major struck him first? Is not three years' imprisonment excessive for a young man's brawl on the night of his birthday party?

Mr. Ramsden: All these factors were brought out in evidence at the trial and then considered. A reduction in sentence is always considered on the occasion of the review to which I have referred, taking account of all circumstances, including the prisoner's conduct since sentence. I cannot, of course, anticipate the result of a reconsideration of sentence, but I will draw the attention of the reviewing officer to my hon. Friend's remarks.

Mr. H. Hynd: Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that on appeal the prisoner's conduct since sentence is taken into consideration? Is not that a very undesirable principle?

Mr. Ramsden: I said that the prisoner's conduct is taken into consideration, and that has always been the practice.

Royal Ordnance Factory, Swynnerton

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for War what is the result of his consultations with the local planning authority about the disposal of the unused portion of the site of the former Royal Ordnance factory at Swynnerton.

Mr. Kirk: I understand that the county council's planning sub-committee has considered the future use of the former Royal Ordnance factory and is now arranging to meet the Stone Rural District Council soon.

Mr. Swingler: Will not the Under-Secretary recognise that any further delay in this matter is intolerable after the seven years' saga of procrastination about this 700 acres of land sterilised in North Staffordshire, and that all those concerned have had years to consider the matter? Cannot somebody summon up the courage to take a decision now to use this site for a more fruitful purpose for the people of North Staffordshire?

Mr. Kirk: I hope that the decision will be taken very shortly, but I have told the hon. Gentleman before that our job is merely to get rid of the site. We are only too anxious to do that as quickly as possible, and we hope to do so before the end of the year.

Mrs. Slater: Does not the hon. Gentleman know that North Staffordshire Members were promised five years ago that a quick decision would be taken? We appreciate that the War Office might want to get rid of it, but would not a little pushing somewhere hurry the business along? In the meantime, the site is lying idle and deteriorating because it is lying idle. Cannot the hon. Gentleman use a little more energy?

Mr. Kirk: I am well aware of all that. We have used a great deal of energy, but there are many problems connected

with the site of which hon. Members are aware. Our main concern is to get rid of it as quickly as possible.

Mr. Swingler: Will the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that after the seven years' delay he will set a time limit for making a decision by somebody to use these 700 acres?

Mr. Kirk: I do not think that we could put a time limit on local authorities, who are very well aware of the difficulty. I hope that they will hurry up and make a decision as quickly as possible.

Mr. Swingler: In view of the nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

East Africa and Cyprus Operations (Medals)

Mr. Cordle: asked the Secretary of Slate for War (1) whether he will recommend that a distinctive medal or clasp to the general service medal be issued to all ranks of military forces who have taken part in the recent operations in East Africa;
(2) whether he will recommend that a distinctive medal or clasp to the general service medal be issued to all ranks of military forces taking part in the operations in Cyprus.

Mr. Ramsden: The operations in which British Forces have taken part in East Africa have been carried out with speed and efficiency and redound to the credit of all ranks, but I do not think it would be appropriate for me to recommend the issue of a distinctive medal or clasp to the General Service Medal.
As regards Cyprus, I should prefer to await the final outcome before deciding whether a recommendation should be made.

Mr. Cordle: Would my right hon. Friend look at that again and perhaps propose additional issues of such medals for all over seas personnel? Would not that be very welcome and stimulate a great deal of interest and enthuse the troops as a whole?

Mr. Ramsden: We have to bear in mind past practice with medals when considering possible fresh instances.

Mr. Shinwell: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "waiting for the final outcome"? Is he waiting until our troops are actually engaged in Cyprus and being killed and wounded before the War Office decides that they are engaged on active operations? Surely they deserve some consideration in view of the strain imposed upon them.

Mr. Ramsden: My answer was intended to mean that I wished to have a little more time to consider the case of Cyprus before deciding whether to make a recommendation.

Land, Glasgow

Mr. Millan: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will release the ground at Dumbreck Road and Dumbreck Avenue, Glasgow, to Glasgow Corporation for housing purposes.

Mr. Kirk: No, Sir. We require this land for a Territorial Army centre.

Mr. Millan: Is the Under-Secretary aware that Glasgow Corporation has been interested in acquiring this site for housing purposes since 1950 and that the War Office has had it since 1954 but has done nothing positive with it in connection with a T.A. centre? Is he aware that this site is in one of the most desirable parts of Glasgow, admirable for housing purposes? As the corporation is willing to provide an alternative site similarly accessible to population in the new housing areas if it can get this site, would he look at this matter again and get someone in the War Office to visit the site and see how inappropriate it is for T.A. purposes and how excellent it would be for the corporation's housing purposes?

Mr. Kirk: This is the most appropriate site we know of. The other sites which Glasgow Corporation has offered us do not seem to be as good, but if it will make us a fresh offer I will certainly look into it.

Mr. Millan: Can I assure the hon. Gentleman that there are other sites equally suitable for T.A. purposes which are available? Does it not seem a monstrous use of this site, which is not particularly desirable for T.A. purposes? Will he, as he has promised, look at this again very carefully?

Mr. Kirk: Certainly. I have given the assurance that if Glasgow Corporation will approach us again, we will look at it again.

Mr. Paget: Is not this a pretty general problem? Have not the War Office a whole series of sites throughout the country which are not being used to the best profit? Is it not time that property utilisation generally was considered by someone with experience of the utilisation of property?

Mr. Kirk: That is another question, as opposed to the question about the specific site. The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that our building programme has to go forward according to certain priorities.

B.A.O.R. (Reorganisation)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for War to what extent the reorganisation of the British Army of the Rhine will reduce the number of British troops in Germany.

Mr. Ramsden: In the long term, not at all.

Mr. Lipton: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken note of the fact that only yesterday H.Q. B.A.O.R. announced that three infantry battalions were to be withdrawn from Germany by the end of the year? When are the Government to abandon the arrant humbug of pretending that we shall ever be able to keep our promise to have 55,000 British Service men in Germany? Is it not time to make a clean break, to come clean and withdraw our men from Germany altogether?

Mr. Ramsden: We had hoped to complete the reorganisation without a temporary reduction in B.A.O.R. strength, but, in view of the need to provide against possible commitments in other overseas theatres, this is now impossible. It remains our object to reach a strength of 55,000 as soon as we can, dependent on recruitment and commitments in other overseas theatres.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not a sensible act on the part of the Government, for which they deserve congratulation—which may be unique—that they have decided to withdraw some troops from Germany where they are not engaged


in active operations or doing anything useful? Will the right hon. Gentleman inject them into the Strategic Reserve? Is it the intention, if troops are withdrawn from the Rhine, to send any more to Cyprus? What is to happen about Cyprus in view of the delay by the United Nations in creating the peace-keeping force? Are our men—some of them boys—in Cyprus to continue to bear the brunt of the trouble there? What is to happen to them?

Mr. Ramsden: That is another question. The House and the Government share the right hon. Gentleman's concern that arrangements for the peacekeeping force should be speedily concluded.

Mr. Paget: Whether it be good or bad, is not the operation in B.A.O.R. broadly speaking an exchange of infantry for support troops in approximately equal numbers?

Mr. Ramsden: That is true as regards the long-term outcome of the reorganiation.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

School Building

Mr. Bence: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimates for school building were submitted to him by Dunbarton education authority for the years 1963–64 and 1964–65, respectively; and what financial allocations were granted.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Noble): I approved the starting of schools to the value of £1·4 million in 1963–64 of which the authority has so far started £0·9 million worth. Its estimate was £2·9 million. For 1964–65 I expect very shortly to give formal approval to the authority's estimate of £1·3 million.

Mr. Bence: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as a result of the cut-back in 1963–64 the position in Dunbartonshire is serious and that hundreds of children aged 5 will get no education until they are 5½ or 5¾? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman provide some temporary buildings in the county, in the new town of Cumbernauld, in Kirkintilloch and on Clyde Bank, so that

these children can start their education at the proper time? The situation there is extremely serious.

Mr. Noble: I know of the problems of which the hon. Gentleman has spoken. It is significant that, although there was a cut in what the authority demanded last year, in fact it started only £0·9 million out of £1·4 million given to it. The problem of temporary classrooms for Cumbernauld is under consideration with my Department and we shall do the best that we can to help.

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total value of the school building programme applied for by Lanarkshire Education Authority for 1964–65; and what was the actual value of the programme approved by his Department.

Mr. Noble: The authority was given in October a provisional allocation of £1·75 million as a basis for their 1964–65 programme, but the programme submitted by in envisaged starts to the value of £3·2 million. I have approved a programme of £2·1 million.

Mr. Dempsey: Is the Secretary of State not ashamed to give a reply of that nature? Does he realise the serious effect that the cut-down in the school building programme is having in Lanarkshire and in Coatbridge and Airdrie? Is he aware that hundreds of St. Augustine's children are being accommodated in a school which was condemned in 1932 and that we have nearly 300 children with no school at all residing in the Showhead area? Is he further aware that Airdrie High School is using accommodation which was condemned 40 years ago and that in St. Patrick's High School, Coatbridge, the appalling conditions are almost indescribable. Will not he reverse this policy and authorise the Lanarkshire Education Authority to proceed with new schools for these children immediately?

Mr. Noble: I am very well aware of the general situation in Lanarkshire because the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady have spoken to me about it. It is because of this that the allocation for Lanarkshire is so high in relation to the rest of Scotland.

Mr. Fraser: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he published a White Paper on Central Scotland a little while ago in which he told the House that he was doing his utmost to stimulate local authorities into encouraging a great increase in infrastructure, which means, among other things, the building of schools? Does he regard as encouraging this allocating to Lanarkshire of two-thirds of the capital expenditure which it believes that it could incur in building up schools in this area?

Mr. Noble: The problem of these allocations, as I explained fairly regularly to the House last year when the problem was also acute, is not only the question of the money but of the resources. Lanarkshire, has been very forward in some of its new building techniques, and it is because of this that I have been able to give it as much as I have, and it will be able to complete the £2·1 million.

Mr. Fraser: Is the Secretary of State aware that Scotland has twice the unemployment figure of the United Kingdom and Lanarkshire twice the unemployment figure of Scotland, and Lanarkshire would appear therefore to have the resources?

Mr. Noble: In the skilled building trades necessary for this, the resources in Scotland are even today extremely scarce.

Cumbernauld (Factory Space)

Mr. Bence: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much factory space is available for letting in the new town of Cumbernauld; and what steps he is taking to speed up the occupation of this available factory space.

Mr. Noble: Cumbernauld Development Corporation has 3,000 square feet of factory space available to let and will have 40,000 square feet more when two advance factories are completed in about a month's time. A number of firms are interested in these premises and the development corporation is preparing plans for further building of this kind.

Mr. Bence: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that every month the figures of the unemployed rise in Cumbernauld and the districts around? Will the right

hon. Gentleman press on to get some tenants for these factories and do what he can to encourage industries to go to the new town, because if he does not it will soon become a dormitory town?

Mr. Noble: While I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's first statement, I can say that I know the problem of unemployment in this area. I also know that the Cumbernauld Development Corporation itself has had a very successful exhibition in London in an effort to bring new industries to that area, and also my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade is doing all that he can to help.

Mr. Bence: But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have had answers to Questions saying that the number of unemployed people registered at the Kilsyth Employment Exchange, which includes the new town of Cumbernauld, is increasing?

Mr. Noble: I understood the hon. Gentleman to be referring to Scotland as a whole. I did not realise that he was referring only to Kilsyth.

Hospitals (Psychiatric Beds)

Miss Herbison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many psychiatric beds are now provided in hospitals for children and adolescents; and what is the waiting period after referral before a child or adolescent is admitted for treatment.

Mr. Noble: There are 55 assessment and treatment beds in children's units and 36 in units for adolescents in Scotland, and beds in other hospitals are made available as appropriate. There are also about 1,450 beds for children and adolescents in mental deficiency hospitals, where active work is now being undertaken. As the waiting period between referral and treatment depends upon the urgency of each case, no average period can be given, but waiting periods may range from over three years to a matter of hours depending on the circumstances.

Miss Herbison: But surely the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that that is not a satisfactory picture at all? It is shocking that a child who is referred for psychiatric treatment should be kept


waiting for three years. What further proposals has the right hon. Gentleman for ensuring that when a child is referred for such examination he will not have to wait for any length of time, let alone three years?

Mr. Noble: We all accept that the present arrangements are not perfect. I do not disagree with the hon. Lady's assessment, but I think that the Scottish Health Services Council's Report on Medical Services for Child Guidance, which the regional hospital boards have and are studying, will help. It is not just a problem of buildings; it is a problem of staff as well. In cases of urgency, children can be admitted in a matter of a few hours. That is the best that we can do at this precise moment.

Mr. Ross: Surely it is the under statement of the year for the right hon. Gentleman to say that the present arrangements are not perfect? It is some time since we passed the Mental Health Bill. We have been pressing the Government to do something along these lines for a long time, and now to be offered study, which means further delay, is not good enough. Can the right hon. Gentleman promise us something specific in relation to what is to be done?

Mr. Noble: I think that the allocation of beds for different purposes should stay with the regional hospital boards. They are doing their best to help, but there is no immediate point in allocating beds until staff are available to look after them.

Miss Herbison: As the Secretary of State seems to be suggesting that the difficulty is due to a shortage of staff rather than to a shortage of beds—I think that there is a shortage of both—does he think that the action of this Government in their treatment of nurses' salaries has done anything at all to attract the staff that we need?

Mr. Noble: I think that that is an entirely separate problem, because in this case a great deal of what is necessary is consultant staff. But the problem is one both of beds and of staff, and regional hospital boards should use their rapidly increasing number of beds in the most effective way.

Ambulance Service

Miss Herbison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what changes he proposes it the ambulance service to ensure that no patient is unduly delayed either on the journey to hospital or from hospital to his home.

Mr. Noble: The Scottish Ambulance Service has recently issued a letter to all staff drawing attention to an unfortunate incident in the hon. Lady's constituency and reminding them of the importance of avoiding delay to patients, especially those who are ill, elderly or frail.

Miss Herbison: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that that action will be sufficient, as the case which I drew to his attention is by no means the only one that has occurred? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that another constituent of mine who was dangerously ill was collected by ambulance, but before she was taken to hospital the ambulance went to the other end of the village to collect two ambulant patients and when they arrived at the hospital she was dead. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is grave dissatisfaction about the present position? Cannot he tell those in charge of the ambulances that much more is needed to ensure that people get fair and adequate treatment?

Mr. Noble: I have already written to the hon. Lady about the unfortunate case which she referred to me and have added my apologies to those of the Scottish Ambulance Service, which was very disturbed bout what had happened.
If the hon. Lady will let me have details of the second case, I shall also draw it to the attention of the Scottish authorities who are most anxious to provide an efficient and adequate service. The letter they have sent round—of which I shall send the hon. Lady a copy if she would like it—highlights the importance of this service.

Gin Traps

Mr. Hendry: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to prohibit the use of the gin trap in Scotland.

Mr. Noble: Every effort is being made to find a satisfactory alternative to the


gin trap for catching foxes and otters. As soon as the efforts are successful, these two remaining permissible uses for the gin trap in Scotland will be prohibited.

Mr. Hendry: When my right hon. Friend speaks about permissible use for foxes and otters, will he explain how, even if a gamekeeper puts up a notice "For foxes and otters only", foxes and otters can be expected to read it? Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the use of this horrible and cruel device in this day and age is quite indefensible, and has his attention been drawn to the Canadian device which has proved successful for this purpose?

Mr. Noble: I understand my hon. Friend's doubts about the ability of foxes and otters to read, but it is also true that in places where these traps have been used for these two types of vermin anything else that goes into them is likely not to be a very desirable species, to put it no higher than that. It is a horrible and cruel method of catching these animals, but great cruelty is also caused by foxes to lambs and other creatures. If my hon. Friend lets me have details of the Canadian weapon, we shall certainly have it looked at by the Committee which studies these things.

Mr. Hannan: What action is the right hon. Gentleman taking through schools, colleges and universities to warn young people about the dangers of other attractive gin traps which are increasing in number at street corners and wreaking social havoc among our young people, and about which many people are concerned?

Mr. Noble: It is a rather different question.

Young Offenders

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) when section 1 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act, 1963, making it mandatory for the courts to call on reports before sentencing young first offenders, is to be brought into operation;
(2) what progress has been made with the building or adaptation of young offenders' institutions; and when it is expected to bring into operation the appropriate

sections of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act, 1963, referring to these institutions.

Mr. Noble: The provisions of the Act relating to reports on young offenders and to young offenders' institutions are closely associated, and it is planned to bring them into operation together early in 1965. Work to provide separate accommodation for young offenders by adaptation and by new building is in hand at Edinburgh and Dumfries; the small unit required for girls will be erected this year at Greenock.

Mr. Thomson: I thank the Secretary of State for that Answer, but would he not consider it worth while drawing a distinction between the buildings required for these institutions and the implementing of the provisions of the Act calling for reports? Is it not elementary commonsense that in the case of young offenders there should be a proper report on the home and other circumstances before deciding the appropriate sentence?

Mr. Noble: I agree that this is technically possible, but my advisers think that it would be better to bring these two provisions of Section 1 of the Act into force together.

Mr. Woodburn: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how far he has got with the development of Polmont, and is this type of institution to be added to the existing one? Is it now complete and likely to be occupied soon?

Mr. Noble: If the right hon. Gentleman will put down a Question, I shall certainly answer it.

Hospital Maternity Services, Glenrothes

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the concern in Glenrothes, Fife, at the lack of hospital maternity accommodation in the new town; and, in veiw of the fact that the birth rate there is higher than the national average and that the population is expected to increase to 55,000 in the next few years, whether he will take urgent steps to provide further maternity hospital facilities.

Mr. Noble: The South-Eastern Regional Hospital Board is at present completing a review of the hospital maternity services in the Region, in which


it will take into account the expected growth of Glenrothes. Until the regional board reaches a decision it would be premature for me to comment.

Mr. Hamilton: Why has it taken so long for the regional hospital board to get round to this problem? I have been complaining about this and I have reflected the complaints of the Glenrothes population for many years. Meanwhile, the population has not only got larger but the birth-rate is increasing, since the population is very much younger than the national average. Moreover, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that young couples are very often many miles away from their parents and, therefore, they have to get hospitalisation for maternity accommodation? Will he bring these points to the attention of the regional hospital board so that it can make a very urgent decision on these questions?

Mr. Noble: I hope that we shall get its decision very soon, and I am informed that the matter was considered at a meeting of the regional hospital board's medical services committee on Monday of this week. I know the importance of this problem for the area.

Legal Aid

Mr. Millan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects legal aid in criminal causes in accordance with the Criminal Justice Act, 1963, to be made available.

Mr. Noble: A considerable amount of preparatory work has still to be done and it will not be possible to bring criminal legal aid into operation before October.

Mr. Millan: Did not the Under-Secretary of State during the passage of the Measure give a promise that legal aid in criminal causes would be introduced on 1st April, 1964? In view of the long history of Government procrastination over a period of many years, is it not extremely disappointing that there should be this further delay in introducing this scheme? Can nothing be done to hurry things up?

Mr. Noble: It is true that my noble Friend made it clear that she could not give a firm date, during the passage of the Bill, for the introduction of

criminal legal aid, but she hoped, as we all did, that it would be possible to bring it in in April. A great deal of work has had to be done. Subordinate instruments have to be made by the Secretary of State, the High Court and the Law Society of Scotland, and the Law Society has had to undertake a great deal of preparatory administrative work. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there has been no slackness among these people, who are all keen to bring this in as soon as possible.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Is the Minister aware that, whatever the nature of the preparatory work in bringing this very necessary part of the Act into operation, the delay is perpetrating a continuing injustice in the case of many poor people who cannot bring their cases before the court because they have not the money to do so, and will he take steps to get on with this preparatory work and see that this part of the Act is brought into operation?

Mr. Noble: I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that everyone is as keen as he is and I am to bring this in at the earliest possible moment, but we must have the preparatory work completed.

New University

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he has had with the University Grants Committee on the siting of the proposed new university in Scotland; and what steps he intends to take to speed up the decision.

Mr. Willis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he has had with the University Grants Committee concerning the siting of the proposed new university in Scotland.

Mr. Hoy: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, in view of the delay in announcing the site of the new university in Scotland, what information he has received from the University Grants Committee about the date when this decision will be published.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what communications he has now had from the University Grants Committee on the site of the new university for Scotland.

Mr. Noble: The University Grants Committee has had an exploratory discussion with my departments about some of the factors to be taken into account in considering the location of the new university. As regards the date of any decision, I would refer the hon. Members to the Answer given yesterday by my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord President of the Council.

Mr. Hamilton: When is the right hon. Gentleman going to get out of the situation of kowtowing to the English Ministers, whether it is the Lord President of the Council or the Minister of Transport? Does he agree that the implication of the Answer given yesterday was that there is no sense of urgency in this matter, and, if he does, what is he himself doing to inject this sense of urgency into the U.G.C. and others concerned?

Mr. Noble: I do not believe that there was any implication in the Answer given by my right hon. Friend yesterday that there was no sense of urgency. As I understood it, he said that it was more important to get the right decision than to rush the matter and perhaps get the wrong one. I am perfectly certain that a decision, and the right decision, will be taken before many months have passed.

Mr. Willis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that yesterday we were told that the University Grants Committee had a number of other things to do before it could visit these sites? If the University Grants Committee is not big enough to get on with urgent work urgently, should not the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the appropriate quarter to get the Universities Grants Committee enlarged so that this work can be done quickly?

Mr. Noble: These are questions for my right hon. and learned Friend. I am very willing to discuss the matter with him and see how quickly this can take place.

Mr. Hoy: Is the Secretary of State aware that if I had wanted to know what the Lord President of the Council had said I would have put down a Question to him? I want to know what consultation the right hon. Gentleman has had with the University Grants

Committee, and whether it has given him any indication of a date for the new University of Scotland. After all, the right hon. Gentleman is Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Noble: I am well aware of the truth of the hon. Member's last remark. I am also aware that it is not unusual, at Question Time, to try to spread my responsibilities somewhat wider than they already are. But, as I said in answer to the Question, I have not had any personal contact with the University Grants Committee, although it has been having discussions with my Department.

Mr. Hoy: Why has the right hon. Gentleman had no personal contact?

Mr. Rankin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that in Scottish matters he is not subordinate to the Lord President of the Council and Minister for Science? Before he does so, when he considers the question of fixing the site, will he bear in mind that besides being a point of great academic growth the university will also be a point of great industrial growth? Will he keep that fact in mind when he is urging the matter on the U.G.C.?

Mr. Noble: I appreciate the force of the request contained in the second part of the hon. Member's supplementary question. As to the first part, the House knows the division of responsibility between my right hon. Friend and myself in connection with universities.

Mr. Willis: You get on with the job.

Mr. Ross: If there is one thing that the House does not know it is exactly that. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is about time that he took personal action in this matter? It may be that in respect of other parts of the country the U.G.C. has other important matters to consider, but on the question of universities in Scotland the most urgent requirement now is to take the first step of locating the site for this university, and then to get on with the job.

Mr. Noble: The question is being looked at urgently. That is why my Department is in touch with the U.G.C.

Teaching Machines

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he is taking to encourage the use of branching teaching machines in teachers' training establishments; and if he will state the amount of Government finance devoted to such branching teaching machines in teachers' training colleges in Scotland.

Mr. Noble: A number of colleges are using these machines but expenditure on them cannot readily be separated from the colleges' expenditure on equipment generally. I have agreed to the appointment at Aberdeen College of Education of a lecturer with a special interest in research in programmed learning and he is collaborating with the education authorities and with the University Automatic Teaching Research Unit.

Mr. Dalyell: Why cannot they be separated? It is only a question of simple arithmetic.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Noble: I am sorry to say that I was unable to hear the nature of the hon. Member's question.

Mr. Dalyell: It was a quite simple one. Why cannot these figures be separated? It must be known how many branching teaching machines there are in each training college. It is merely a question of addition.

Mr. Noble: It will be known in a few weeks. I have written to local authorities asking them for this information.

Mr. Dalyell: This Question is about teacher training colleges and not about local authorities.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: Can my right hon. Friend tell us what is a branching teaching, machine?

Mr. Noble: It is a rather complicated instrument. I will write to my hon. Friend if he would like to know the precise difference between linear and branching teaching machines.

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will allocate earmarked grants to local authorities willing to conduct experimental projects

in the use of branching teaching machines.

Mr. Noble: I am encouraging the growing interest among education authorities in this field, but I have no power to make earmarked grants to them for experimental work.

Mr. Dalyell: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that development costs for this sort of hardware runs to six figures? Does he admit that this delay often puts developers in a fairly embarrassing situation, and that a working party consisting of his Department, local authorities and developers would at least provide, some idea of where pioneering firms stand?

Mr. Noble: This may well be something which will come about in the future. At the moment, I have given a grant to the University of Aberdeen to assist in research. In this country at least, all these machines are still in the experimental stage. Local authorities are keen to use them and I am keen to help them as soon as I know how effective they can be.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that these machines enable teachers to teach more children in a class, or to teach them better than they are being taught at present, and that they obviously have a considerable future? Teachers are gratified to take them up and they should receive every encouragement to do so.

Mr. Noble: That is broadly what I am trying to do at the moment.

Mr. Ross: On the previous Question, which concerned teacher training colleges and had nothing to do with local authorities, the right hon. Gentleman said that he had written to local authorities. On this Question, which relates to local authorities, will he write to teacher training colleges?

School Transport

Mr. Brewis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last reviewed the regulation which requires a five-year old child to walk two miles before transport to school is provided; and whether he will now review this regulation in order to reduce this distance.

Mr. Noble: The present statutory definition of "walking distance", for the purposes of reasonable excuse for non-attendance, dates from 1945. Education authorities are, however, empowered to make arrangements for transport and other facilities, without reference to any particular limit of distance, as they consider necessary. I will be glad to look into any particular case.

Herring Industry

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland on what criteria he has based his assessment of the prices which would need to be paid for the herring catch to bring about an increase in the number of the herring drift net fleet.

Mr. Noble: I have not attempted any such assessment. I would expect the herring drift net fleet to increase as it usually does when the Scottish summer fishing begins.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the Buchan ports the herring drift net fleet diminished from 80 boats to 30 boats in a period of just over two years, owing to the starvation prices paid for herring to be converted to fishmeal and oil? If an economic price had been paid for these herring the herring fleet could have survived, and the fishmeal and oil trade could also have done good business.

Mr. Noble: I am aware of the exact position and the number of the herring drift net fleet, because my hon. Friend has told me quite often. Nevertheless, it is true that in many years in the past—indeed, last year—the fleet dropped to about 40 at this time of year. I hope that fair herring prices and good catches will enable the fleets to keep steady through the years, but this is something that the Government cannot control.

Sir J. MacLeod: Can my right hon. Friend say what prices herring for fish-meal are fetching?

Mr. Noble: Not without notice.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is my hon. Friend aware that this process of diminution has gone on for a long time? It used to be 40 boats, and now it is 30. How can what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State described the

other day as reasonable financial support be regarded as such if the industry continues to diminish in spite of it?

Mr. Noble: I have not yet had an opportunity of seeing the operating accounts for the herring fleet for 1963. My impression is that over the whole year it has not done badly, but I cannot give a firm answer.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are his plans to restore the overall catching strength of the herring drift net fleet to at least 80 boats.

Mr. Noble: Drift-net fishing for herring is usually on a small scale at this time of year and I have no reason to suppose that the fleet will not increase when the summer fishing gets under way in May or June.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Has my right hon. Friend any record of the amount by which the herring drift net fleet has decreased in numbers since 1946?

Mr. Noble: If my hon. Friend will put down a Question I will give him the Answer.

Prisoners (Classification)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the method of classification of prisoners in Scottish prisons according to age, sentence and record; what psychiatric and other evidence is relied on; and why requests by prisoners asking to be transferred to facilitate visits by members of their families are refused.

Mr. Noble: The classification of prisoners by age, sentence, and record is designed, in their own interests, to bring together those of similar character. A prisoner is classified at the prison of first committal, psychiatric advice being obtained if required. If experience shows that he would be better placed in another group, he is moved. Prisoners may also be moved to allow them to follow specialist training courses, and in certain circumstances they may be transferred temporarily to be near their families. But the scheme of classification, which is designed to advance the training of prisoners, would not work if transfers were authorised freely simply to facilitate visits.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Secretary of State not realise that visits by parents, wives, husbands and, perhaps, children may play a very important part in the reformation and rehabilitation to good citizenship of prisoners? Should not he therefore facilitate such visits, in the hope that they will help to reform prisoners? An instance is the case of the Aberdeen prisoner in Perth prison, about whom I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman asking for his return from Perth to Aberdeen, where he could be visited by his wife, who is expecting a child.

Mr. Noble: I agree that under proper conditions visits are an important part in rehabilitating the minds of prisoners, but many other factors have to be taken into account, as I said in my Answer. Wherever there is genuine need and the prison authorities think that a prisoner's mental health—if it is the correct expression—will be improved by visits, they do their best to arrange them.

Mr. Hughes: What are the other factors?

Remand Homes

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the growing need for increased remand home accommodation for girls; and what steps he is taking to provide such facilities.

Mr. Noble: Overcrowding in remand home accommodation for girls has not been a serious problem. I have, however, recently approved a proposal by the corporation of Dundee for a new remand home with some additional places for girls.

Mr. Hannan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Beechwood Remand Home takes over 50 per cent. of all the girls in this category in Scotland and that recently girls were sent to Beechwood from as far away as Preston? Will the right hon. Gentleman look at this matter again? Is he further aware that at Larchgrove, which accommodates 80 boys, there are sometimes as many as 117, and that they sleep in the corridors? When is the Kilbrandon Report expected, which deals with the question of courts committing young people to

these places which are already overcrowded?

Mr. Noble: As I have told the House, the Kilbrandon Report will be published about Easter. As the hon. Gentleman's Question referred specifically to girls, I have not the information about boys for which he asked.

Sir J. Duncan: Can my right hon. Friend say when the remand home will be provided at Dundee to replace the very bad remand home which exists there at present?

Mr. Noble: I have not the exact date when the Dundee home will be ready, but I will let my hon. Friend know.

Mr. Hannan: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall endeavour to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Housing (Interest Charges and Subsidies)

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was paid in interest on the capital debt in respect of local authority housing; and what was the average rate of interest charged for the financial years 1950–51 and 1962–63, respectively.

Mr. Noble: The available information, for the years nearest to those asked for by the hon. Member, is that the total interest paid in 1951–52 was £7·3 million and in 1961–62 £29·2 million. The estimated average rates of interest on outstanding housing debt were 3 per cent. and 4·9 per cent., respectively.

Mr. Gourlay: Do not these figures clearly demonstrate the reason which the right hon. Gentleman is using to compel local authorities to increase municipal rents? Will the Government now take steps to reduce this enormous sum being paid annually to the financial moguls of this country? Alternatively, will the Government increase the housing subsidies so that local authorities in Scotland can let houses at rents which the workers there, who receive a lower average wage, can reasonably afford to pay?

Mr. Noble: I do not think the problem is as simple as that. Many other factors enter into it. The cost of houses


has risen. Wages in the building industry have risen by 100 per cent. There may well be factors in the housing deficits of local authorities which might be helped if they took a more realistic view.

Mr. Manuel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many local authorities have had their housing subsidies reduced to £12 per year per house.

Mr. Noble: My answer to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Gourlay) on 4th March shows that 33 local authorities have qualified for the £12 rate of subsidy. Of these, three subsequently qualified for the £32 rate of subsidy in respect of later houses.

Mr. Manuel: The Secretary of State will agree that this is a large number and that the slashing decrease in the housing subsidies is severely affecting local authorities in areas of high and persistent unemployment. Is he aware that the situation in these areas makes it impossible for local authorities to cope with the housing problems because of the reduction in the subsidies and that they can recoup these amounts only by increasing the rents.

Mr. Noble: But the remainder of my answer to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy also stresses that 39 authorities have had a substantial increase in basic subsidies and that these basic rates of subsidy are determined annually on the basis of the financial resources of individual authorities. Out of 40 authorities which have had their claims settled for the current year, 24 are getting subsidies ranging between £32 and £48.

Mr. Manuel: Did the right hon. Gentleman find out in which areas of high and persistent unemployment there had been a reduction to £12 from £32?

Mr. Noble: Not in detail.

Milk Production

Mr. Manuel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many farmers stopped producing milk during the years 1962 and 1963.

Mr. Noble: According to the best information available, the figures for the three Milk Boards' Areas in Scotland in 1962 and 1963 were about 230 and 300, respectively.

Mr. Manuel: Is the Minister aware that hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies are becoming inundated with correspondence from dairy farmers in all parts of Scotland? Is he aware that 23 dairy farmers went out of milk production during each month of 1963? Is he further aware that farmers in North Ayrshire have been severely affected, and what does he intend to do to stop this drastic reduction in milk production?

Mr. Noble: The hon. Gentleman will know that the February Price Review, when these considerations are dealt with, will be coming out in the course of the next week or so, and that is the time when we can consider Government action.

Mr. W. Baxter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his Answer will give no comfort to the dairy farmers because, if taken in conjunction with the recent statement that butter imports are increasing, it presupposes that the production of milk is to be reduced still further? Is he aware that this will affect the farmers in Scotland, and not only the farmers, but those engaged in producing cheese will be adversely affected? Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps immediately, with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, to devise a policy to prevent dairy farmers being put out of business and bring hope to the butter and cheese producers?

Mr. Noble: As the hon. Gentleman knows, a good deal of the difficulty which farmers and the Government have experienced recently arose from the fact that the trend of milk production did not bear much relation to the expansion of the liquid milk market. The hon. Gentleman will realise my difficulty in trying to give him information on the Government's thoughts in this matter in advance of the Price Review.

Sir J. Duncan: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it is not necessarily a bad thing to have some reduction in milk farming, provided that other forms of farming are made profitable?

Mr. Noble: This has been one of the factors which the Milk Marketing Board and many farmers have hoped for, that the farmers engaged in less profitable


dairy farming, particularly in the high areas, may move to beef production.

Mr. Manuel: That would mean a shortage of milk next year.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a White Paper on milk production in Scotland, giving the latest information about the recent decrease in incomes of milk producers.

Mr. Noble: No, Sir. The question of farm incomes generally, including those of dairy farmers, will be dealt with in the White Paper to be published after the completion of the present Annual Review.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Secretary of State aware that hon. Members from South-West Scotland constituencies are being very much pressed by their farmer constituents to get some explanation from the Government of the figures given by the Government and those which they know to be the reality? Is he aware that the leading farmers' journal in Scotland has said that the Minister of Agriculture is remote from reality? Does not the Secretary of State think it time when farmers say that their rents have gone up by 125 per cent. that we should get some enlightenment as to the burden on the farmer by the landlord?

Mr. Noble: I am aware of many of these things, because I have had representations both from the N.F.U. and from all three Milk Marketing Boards. I am also in touch with probably the most efficient section of dairy farmers in the Mull of Kintyre in my constituency, but this is not the time when a statement can be made immediately before the issue of the Price Review.

Sir J. MacLeod: Can my right hon. Friend say how many dairy farmers will go out of production because of the winter keep scheme?

Mr. Noble: I do not believe any more dairy farmers will go out of production unless they find a more profitable and more satisfactory method of farming in their areas.

Mr. Ross: Is the Secretary of State aware that farmers in South-West Scotland who are mainly concerned with milk production are very angry indeed?

Does he expect us now, following the Answer he gave to his hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan), to tell them that they need not worry very much, they can endure their poverty because other farmers are prosperous?

Mr. Noble: There was no such implication in what I said to my hon. Friend. The farmers will no doubt make their own assessment of the position after the Annual Price Review.

Carnegie Trust (Higher Education)

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what assistance has been given by the Carnegie Trust in the last two years to higher educational establishments for which he is responsible.

Mr. Noble: Central institutions received grants from the Trust amounting to £8,505 in 1961–62 and £17,759 in 1962–63.

Mr. Hannan: I thank the Minister for that reply and I should like to pay tribute to the great work of the Carnegie Trust. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Trust appears to be seeking legal advice about restricting future grants to the four existing universities? Would not he agree that this would be undesirable and discriminatory? Will he use his influence to see that the new universities will also qualify, or at least will be considered for similar treatment?

Mr. Noble: I think that this is a matter essentially for the Trustees, but I will bring to their notice the matter which the hon. Gentleman has raised.

CYPRUS (BRITISH TROOPS)

Mr. Paget (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether he will make a statement as to the action taken against and threats offered to British troops on duty in Nicosia and Ktima by Greek Cypriot police yesterday.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies (Mr. Duncan Sandys): During the fighting between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots at Ktima, on 9th March, the Greek Cypriot police and


irregulars obstructed British troops who were seeking to enter the town. Since he did not think it right to fire on the police, the Commander decided that he had no option, but to abandon his attempt to stop the fighting.
On 10th March, in Nicosia, a Turkish Cypriot convoy proceeding to Famagusta to collect Red Crescent supplies with a British military escort, was stopped by some Greek Cypriot police and about 50 armed irregulars. The Turkish Cypriot drivers were forced to stand in the road with their hands up while the convoy was searched. Again, since they did not wish to open fire on the police, the British escort was obliged to stand aside while the search was carried out.
These two incidents are typical of others which are making the task of our troops increasingly intolerable.
When the intercommunal fighting broke out last Christmas the British, Greek and Turkish Governments, as signatories of the Treaty of Guarantee, offered to make forces available to help maintain the cease fire and stop further fighting. This offer was accepted by President Makarios and Vice-President Kutchuk.
However, for reasons which are known to the House, Britain has had to bear almost the whole burden of the peacekeeping task; and as the situation has deteriorated we have had to send more and more reinforcements.
We have repeatedly made it clear that we cannot discharge these thankless duties, except with the full co-operation and good will of the Cyprus authorities and of both communities. I regret that lately there has been very little of either co-operation or good will.
When our troops have tried to separate the combatants, and to protect one group from attack by another, they have been accused of partiality and have been bitterly abused by the Press and radio. As recent incidents show, it has now reached the point where British troops, while attempting to discharge their duty are held up by Greek-Cypriot police and irregulars, who regard the Turkish-Cypriot police and the Turkish minority generally as rebels who must be forced into submission.
Both communities have at one time or another acted in a provocative and unconstitutional manner; and neither can reasonably claim that it has legal authority to impose its will on the other.
In any case, this is no time to argue about legal rights and wrongs. Cyprus is in a state verging on civil war. The urgent task is to stop the killings and to restore some sense of security among people who are now living in abject fear.
That is what our British soldiers have been trying to do. We have all admired their courage, their discipline and their unbelievable patience. But there is a limit to the dangers and indignities which we have a right to ask them to endure.
We have, therefore, warned the Secretary-General of the United Nations that we cannot much longer carry this burden alone, not only unaided, but actively obstructed by those whom we are trying to help. We are exerting all our efforts to assist the Secretary-General to establish a United Nations force, which can be sent to Cyprus without further dangerous delay. We have asked him to inform us tomorrow of the progress he has made and of his assessment of the prospects of success. In the light of his reply, we will review our position.

Mr. Paget: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side of the House would like to join with him and endorse all that he has said about the conduct of the British troops and of the sympathy which is due to them in the really impossible conditions in which they are placed?
Support of the civil power is always a job which soldiers hate, but when they find themselves threatened by the revolvers of the instrument of that civil power which they are seeking to aid, and find the police promoting the very conflict which they are trying to stop, the situation, as the right hon. Gentleman said, is intolerable.

Sir S. McAdden: Has the attention of my right hon. Friend been drawn to the photograph which appeared in the Press yesterday of a British soldier being threatened by a Greek Cypriot policeman with a revolver? In those circumstances, will he describe to the


House the difference between a Greek Cypriot policeman and a Greek Cypriot irregular?

Mr. Sandys: I am sure that the whole country was shocked by that photograph which we saw yesterday.
The difference between a policeman and an irregular in Cyprus is a little hard to define, because, unfortunately, a very large number of armed irregulars have recently been enrolled into the Cyprus police in numbers far exceeding those laid down by the Constitution.

Mr. H. Wilson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware, from what has been said from both sides of the House, that the tributes paid to the British troops in previous weeks need to be added to following the additional burden which they have had to carry in the past few days. The right hon. Gentleman has rightly said that the situation is becoming intolerable. We understand that the Government are to consider the position urgently within the next 48 hours.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that whatever arguments there may have been—and the whole House has shown great restraint during these difficult weeks—all of us are extremely concerned about the present most humiliating position in which our troops are being put, and in which they are behaving with such restraint and dignity? How soon does he expect to be able to report to the House on the Government's further consideration of the matter?

Mr. Sandys: I am sure that the whole House appreciates the remarks which the right hon. Gentleman made. I cannot give him a precise answer to the last part of his question, but I will make a further statement at the very earliest possible moment.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: Will my right hon. Friend agree that in this very difficult peace-keeping task to which he has referred, in which British troops are acting while the United Nations are talking, this position ought not to continue indefinitely but ought to be terminated by a definite date?

Mr. Sandys: Everything that I have said has indicated that we are extremely concerned about the continuation of this situation in regard to our troops, which the whole House deplores. On the other hand, I am sure that, equally, all hon. Members recognise the gravity of any decision which we might take in this matter.

Mr. A. Henderson: Pending the withdrawal of our forces, or, alternatively, the arrival of other United Nations contingents into Cyprus, is there any reason why our forces should not immediately be given the status of the nucleus of the United Nations peace-keeping force and put under the command of General Gyani, who is to command the United Nations force?

Mr. Sandys: I understand the thought behind the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question, but I do not believe that putting somebody else in command, even if that were desirable, would make the task any easier. I must say to the House quite frankly that even when the new United Nations force arrives, if, as I hope, it does, I am by no means certain that its task will be any easier than the task of the British forces there today.

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (BIRTH OF A SON)

The Prime Minister (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): I am sure that the House would like to have an opportunity of conveying its congratulations to the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh on the birth of a son yesterday. I therefore give notice that tomorrow I will move a Motion for a humble Address.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock, and that if the first six Resolutions proposed shad have been agreed to by the Committee of Supply before half-past Nine o'clock, the Chairman shall proceed to put forthwith the Questions which he is directed to put at half-past Nine o'clock by paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply).—[The Prime Minister.]

GUNS (THIRD PARTY INSURANCE)

3.44 p.m.

Mr. Forbes Hendry: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make insurance against third party risks a prerequisite for the issue of gun and game licences.
The autumn before last one of my constituents, while engaged on his lawful occupation in the country, was struck on the face by shot discharged from a sporting gun. That may have been an accident and it would not be proper for me, at this stage, to speculate as to the cause. Suffice it to say that this man, a highly respected citizen with a great record of public service, hovered on the border between life and death for two weeks. Happily, he recovered, but he lost irrevocably the sight of one eye. It may have been an accident, but that was very cold comfort to him. He is now without an eye, and he has been unable to recover any damages from the person responsible for firing the shot.
Only last summer the wife of a friend of mine left her baby in a pram in her garden. A neighbour, very properly, was shooting pigeons. Unfortunately, he forgot that the shot fired from a sporting gun must come down somewhere. The shot came down on the pram, which was badly peppered with shot. By a miracle the baby was unharmed. But again, we might have had a tragedy, and a young life might have been cut off. Again, there was no hope of any recovery in respect of the negligence which caused this possibly serious accident.
This sort of accident does not occur very frequently but often enough to cause much public concern. When I determined to ask leave to introduce the Bill, I received support from many organisations. In particular, I should like to refer to the support which I received from the very important Women's Group on Public Welfare. I understand that that is a very powerful federation of women's organisations throughout the country. They have authorised me to say that they are very anxious that legislation is passed to make insurance against accidents of this sort compulsory in the event of a person applying for a gun licence.
A great deal of concern has been expressed, too, by the National Farmers' Union. Farmers generally have been troubled a great deal during past years by trespassers as well as by others going legitimately on their farms and shooting not only game, but rabbits, and causing a great deal of damage to their farm animals. Much loss has been caused to farmers without any hope of their recovering damages from the persons who caused it. I have been authorised by the National Farmers' Union to say that it is solidly behind the objectives underlying the Bill I hope to introduce. The union has expressed its best wishes for the progress of the Bill through the House if permission is given to introduce it.
I have been to the trouble of making inquiries about the cost to people carrying guns of the proposals which I hope to make in the Bill. I find that the cost is negligible. Farmers have the advantage of getting suitable cover absolutely free under their ordinary third party and road risks policy if they confine themselves to shooting vermin. In that case, there is no extra cost at all for suitable insurance. If the farmer wishes to use a sporting gun for pleasure, as well as for shooting vermin on his own farm, the cost to him, I am informed, is only 10s. per annum, which is a very small cost for such a valuable cover.
The ordinary householder, who uses a gun very little, is, I am informed, completely covered against accidents of this nature under his ordinary householder comprehensive insurance. I am told that the cover is given free by the insurance companies as a normal extension to his policy. I am also informed that people who are using guns frequently can get cover up to £10,000 for any one accident for only 7s. 6d. in any one year and cover up to £100,000 for any one accident for the paltry sum of 10s. per annum. The cost of the proposals in the Bill is, therefore, negligible, and the Bill is, therefore, not a material interference with the liberty of any subject.
It must be borne in mind that the insurers who would issue suitable policies would use their discretion. It is hoped that they would refuse to issue policies to people who are manifestly unsuitable to be indemnified in this way. I need not enlarge on that. But


it is well known that many people who carry guns are quite unsuitable to do so, and yet anyone can go to the Post Office and buy a gun licence simply by paying a fee.
In the past, gun licences and game licences were introduced for the purpose of raising revenue. In this modern age the amount of revenue raised by such licences is very small, but I suggest that these licences could serve a very useful purpose in making sure that people who handle guns are suitable to do so and that they would be in a position to cover the loss sustained by innocent third parties through the use of these lethal weapons.
There is ample precedent for insurance of this sort. Nobody can drive a motor car without being properly insured against third party risks. That is right and proper, because a motor car is a lethal weapon. A sporting gun is equally, if not more, lethal, and although accidents may not happen so frequently they can be severe when they do happen.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hendry, Mr. Brewis, Mr. Bullard, Mr. Loveys, and Mr. J. Wells.

GUNS (THIRD PARTY INSURANCE)

Bill to make insurance against third party risks a prerequisite for the issue of gun and game licences, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 20th March, and to be printed. [Bill 108.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[12TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMEN TARY ESTIMATES, 1963–64; CIVIL ESTIMATES AND DE FENCE (CENTRAL) ESTIMATE, 1964–65, VOTE ON ACCOUNT; DEFENCE (NAVY) ESTIMATES, 1964–65; MINISTRY OF DE FENCE SUPPLEMENTARY ESTI MATE, 1963–64; CIVIL ESTI MATES (EXCESS) 1962–63

CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1963–64

CLASS I

VOTE 3. TREASURY AND SUBORDINATE DEPARTMENTS

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £216,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1964, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of Her Majesty's Treasury and subordinate departments and of the First Secretary of State, the Lord Privy Seal, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and two Ministers without Portfolio.

CLASS VII

VOTE 4. DEPARTMENT OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £209,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1964, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of Scientific and industrial Research, including certain subscriptions to international organisations.

CLASS IX

VOTE 2. PUBLIC BUILDINGS, ETC., UNITED KINGDOM

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,991,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1964, for expenditure on public buildings in the United Kingdom, including a grant in aid, a purchase grant in aid and sundry other services.

CLASS IV

VOTE 10. MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT

Resolved,
That a further Supplementary sum, not exceeding £267,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1964, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Transport, the Coastguard, certain Tribunals and Committees and sundry other services including subscriptions to international organisations.

CLASS V

VOTE 7. MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD SERVICES)

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1964, for expenditure by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in connection with sundry agricultural and food services including grants, grants in aid and certain subscriptions to international organisations.

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND DEFENCE (CENTRAL) ESTIMATE, 1964–65

(VOTE ON ACCOUNT)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £1,779,406,100, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for the following Civil Departments and for the Ministry of Defence for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965:—

CIVIL ESTIMATES


CLASS I



£


1. House of Lords
102,000


2. House of Commons
595,000


3. Treasury and Subordinate Departments
1,600,000


4. Privy Council Office
18,000


5. Post Office Ministers
2,500


6. Customs and Excise
7,400,000


7. Inland Revenue
21,200,000


8. Exchequer and Audit Department
290,000


9. Civil Service Commission
312,000


10. Royal Commissions, etc.
260,000

COST OF LIVING

4.55 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: I beg to move, That a sum not exceeding £1,779,405,100 be granted for the said Service.
This modest reduction, I am bound to say, does not measure our dissatisfaction with the failure of the Government either to keep prices at a reasonable level or to reduce them. We take this step to call attention to both of these matters. You will have noticed, Sir William, that one of the Votes was concerned with the salaries of two Ministers without Portfolio. I understand that we will be

"smoking one of them out" this afternoon and that the "Minister for Party Propaganda"—which is his proper title—will if he catches your eye, answer the debate. It is appropriate that a Minister who draws his salary for indulging in party propaganda should have an opportunity to speak in the debate, particularly since he will find that he has a considerable case to answer.
I do not know why the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade has vanished from the battlefield. Perhaps he heard the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) asking for leave to introduce a Bill in respect of homicide and suicide and has left the Chamber to take out an insurance policy in advance of further discussion on that Bill, under which the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West wants insurances to be taken out as a prerequisite for the issue of gun licences.
My right hon. and hon. Friends and I have asked for this debate because we want to talk about reality this afternoon and not that mixture of hope and fear that distinguished the debate yesterday, when we were talking about possible reductions in prices and what could happen to some people in some cases which no one could exactly envisage. Today, we return to the realities of the situation, namely, the high cost of living which the people are enduring.
It must have been disappointing to Aims of Industry when it commissioned its investigation into nationalisation, to find that whereas only 2·3 per cent. of people regard nationalisation as the most important issue in the General Election, nearly 40 per cent. believe that the cost of living is the first and most important of all the issues with which we are confronted. The people's judgment is sound. Whatever the "Minister for Party Propaganda may tell us tonight, the fact remains that prices are higher today than they have been in our history. The fact also remains that since the Conservatives have been in power, prices have gone up by at least 50 per cent. while, at the same time, the purchasing power of the £ has gone down; and, on the basis of retail prices, is worth no more than 13s. 9d. by comparison with 20s. in 1951.
I am sure that it would be boring to my hon. Friends and annoying to hon. Gentlemen opposite if I were to recount


the varied pledges made by the Conservatives to mend the hole in the purse. Immediately before the last General Election the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was then Mr. Derick Heathcoat-Amory, now Lord Amory, was making precisely the platitudinous, complacent speeches which the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has been making about prices in recent months. Then, as now, the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the day were both telling us—that is, before the 1959 election—that they expected to see a period of stability in prices, if not some reductions. Then both of them were telling us, as we are now being told, that although there is cause for concern, if wages are kept within bounds we need not see an increase in prices.
As always, the Government have attempted to shuffle off their responsibilities on to the shoulders of the wage earners. They rarely speak of their own responsibilities in this matter, although they are many and heavy. The Government are a responsibility, for example, for increased prices resulting from their policy of decontrolled rents
Every hon. Member knows how much the increased cost of living has resulted from increases in rents as well as from the policy which the Government have followed of putting up interest rates, particularly for would-be home owners, and especially from the policy which the Government have not just encouraged but have deliberately followed, of encouraging land speculation. The Government are responsible for the present level of prices in land, and they have shown an almost complete disinterest in the results of their own policies. They have certainly shown a complete lack of interest in manufacturers' profit margins and prices.
The only thing in which they have continuously shown a vested interest is how low can wages be kept. Everything has been put on the backs of the wage-earners. In speech after speech by hon. Members opposite we have been told that he is the one who is responsible for increases in prices. It is time that this was laid low.
It has been left to the National Economic Development Council, not the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to get assurances from certain industries that

they do not intend to make general increases in prices. As a result of the approach, not by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or by the Prime Minister, but by Sir Robert Shone, the coal, cement, chemicals, oil and iron and steel industries have all said that they do not intend to make any general increase in prices.
I do not belittle this. It is valuable, particularly in coal. I think that it is more meritorious concerning the coal industry than some of these other industries, because the coal industry is a labour-intensive industry and, therefore, increases in wages have a much greater effect on prices than they do in the other industries. But because of increased productivity, the National Coal Board, under Lord Robens, is able to keep a steady level of prices and the coal miners, by increasing productivity, have shown that the nationalisation of coal was a good bargain for the country.
Some cynics point out that in the case of oil and chemicals and, to some extent, cement, one of the major reasons for their being able to give these assurances is over-production and over-capacity. I would not be cynical about this. It is worth having these assurances. I regret that it was left to the Director-General of the N.E.D.C. to get them. However, it is better to have them from someone than from no one.
I shall raise later another question about these five industries, and that is not whether it is sufficient for them to give an assurance that they do not intend to raise their prices but whether there should be some investigation into the question of whether they could reduce their prices. No one ever thinks or talks these days about reducing prices. All that we talk about is how we can stop them going up. There is a clear responsibility on every scientifically-based industry which is capital-intensive to reduce its prices. I do not believe that there is a sufficient awareness in these industries of the need for them to help to maintain a stable price level by pushing down their own prices.
Having said that I welcome the limited extent to which these 5 industries have gone, may I ask what is the position about the other 12? Seventeen industries were examined during the course of the National Economic Development Council's first Report. Did the Council ask


the other 12 industries whether they were ready to give similar assurances about keeping a steady price level? If not, why not? Did it ask them and was it refused? Whether it asked them or not, what does the Chancellor of the Exchequer propose to do about it? Does he propose to ask them what contribution they have to make to maintaining a steady price level or reducing it? That is what he should be doing instead of putting the weight of all his speeches on the necessity of keeping wage increases within the limit of 2½per cent. I will return to that later.
I wish to give a few examples of the effect that recent price increases, which have been phenomenal over a wide field, are having in particular areas. I take the Cardiff City Council because it is my own and I went there last weekend to get the details. However, the same will be true of every local authority. My authority engages in a great many purchases for residential institutions—old people's homes, children's homes and schools. I should like to give some indications of the increases in price which the council has had to pay in the last 12 months.
On 1st April, 1963, the price of a pair of blankets was 56s. 9d. On 1st April, in three weeks' time, it will be 73s. In the same period, flour has increased in price from 87s. 6d. to 99s. 6d. for a 280 lb. sack. The price of meat, which remained fairly steady for the last nine months of 1963, has increased by 20 to 25 per cent. during the first two months of 1964. The price of bacon has increased from 233s. to 315s. per cwt., taking the same base date. The price of electric lamps has increased from 1s. 10d. to 2s. 6d. There has been a general increase of between 6 and 10 per cent. in the price of locks, catches and screws. In galvanised ware, there has been a general increase of about 6½ per cent. Uniform jackets have increased in price from 101s. 3d. to 115s. 3d.
If the Chancellor of the Exchequer mutters something about the authority not being a good buyer, I will match the purchasing authority in Cardiff against any other in the country. It has centralised its purchases. It has very keen buyers, and, despite rising

prices during the last 12 months, I could give other illustrations of it having managed through keen buying to force down the level of price which it was being asked. Therefore, do not let me hear any nonsense from the right hon. Gentleman about indifferent buying.

Sir Stephen McAdden: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. As far as I know, I have never interrupted him before. Will he reinforce these impressive figures by pointing out how, in many cases, prices have come down? His attention must have been drawn to the fact that the nationalised industries have brought down prices. Surely he knows that the cost of transport by buses is much cheaper and that rail fares and the price of coal are much cheaper—or are they not?

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Member says that he has never interrupted me before. He must have forgotten all the occasions when we appeared together in the news on television, when I was unable to get a word in edgeways. I will return to these points and complete the case. He need not fear that anything will be missed. The hon. Member used the word "impressive", but I would refer to the depressive increase in the level of prices which will affect rates in due course. People will recover some part of the cost, but it is bound to increase the cost which the ratepayer in Cardiff must bear for these institutions. Every other hon. Member could tell similar stories in his own local authority.
I come to the retail price index so that the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden) shall have no complaint. It has gone up by nearly 5 per cent. since January, 1962—that is, in a period of two years. The cost of housing has increased by 11 per cent. and the cost of fuel and light by 10 per cent. Both these things are the Government's responsibility. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knows the reasons for the increases in the cost of fuel and light.
We read today in the newspapers that the South Western Electricity Board will have to increase its charges by 11 or 12 per cent. The reason is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is visiting certain financial obligations on the electricity authorities. He is making them


raise the ratio of their turnover to their net assets so that they make a profit of about 12⅔ per cent. to finance the future. The domestic consumers in the South-West who will pay another 18 per cent. on 1st April can say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is expecting us to finance not only the Government's past mistakes, but the future, too.
We have to provide now the finance for the future building of the nuclear power stations, and the rest—[Interruption.] The Chancellor need not pretend to be so innocent. He knows of alternative ways of financing this, and he has employed them. I have heard him advocating them at Cambridge University. I hope that he will not challenge me on that.
Bread and flour have gone up by 7 per cent., butter and fats by 12 per cent. and furniture by 6 per cent. The price reductions—and this is what the hon. Member for Southend, East is interested in—where have they occurred? Television sets, radio, tobacco and alcohol are all either stationary or have come down. What does any hon. Member opposite think the poorest members of the community spend most on? Is it on alcohol, tobacco, radio or television? Or is it on furniture, food, rent and clothing? Which is it?
This is where we are dealing with the cost of living as it affects the great body of our citizens. I am not impressed by the fact that alcohol has not gone up in price, or that tobacco prices have remained stationary—my concern is that the cost of housing has gone up by 11 per cent. within an average figure of 5 per cent increase. But I must qualify what I have just said, because I am sure that the Government Front Bench will be interested to know that during the last two weeks the price of Martell's "Three Star" brandy has gone up from 48s. 6d. to 50s. per bottle. When a bottle was bought by my informant he was told that this increase had been made in anticipation of the Resale Prices Bill—"we hope to bring the price down again afterwards."
The Financial Times estimated that, since December, over 1,000 separate items of food had increased in price. Since then the flood has continued, with

increases on everything from Sugar Puffs to Horlicks. The same story is true in pharmacy. Prices should have gone down, and to some extent did, when the Chancellor reduced Purchase Tax on cosmetics from 45 per cent. to 25 per cent. from 1st January, 1963, but a number of retailers detected a tendency then among the manufacturers not to bring the price down by the full Purchase Tax decrease—there were always the margins.
Nevertheless, pharmacy prices have remained reasonably constant until the last few months. Now some of the larger firms have announced increases—Beechams, Colgate, Palmolive, Kodak, Coty Ltd., Glaxo Ltd., Phillips Scott & Turner, Southalls Ltd., Miles Laboratories, County Laboratories. Indeed, I understand that of the 60 products marketed by Beechams, 38 have been increased in price to the retailer during the last two months. Again, the suggestion is made that the prices are being put up now so that they can be reduced later when the Resale Prices Bill is enacted.
If I may add to the discomfiture of hon. Gentlemen opposite, any one of them who has a headache after last night will have to pay 3s. 9d. for his Alka Seltzer instead of 3s. 6d., and 4s. 9d. for the Beechams pills which, last autumn, cost 4s. 2d.—without any explanation being given for these price increases.
Another aspect of the cost of living is land costs. The free market in land is causing desperation to thousands of families—young people—who would like to buy their own houses, and council house rents have increased out of all proportion. That is all due to the idiocy of a Government whose Home Secretary, when Minister of Housing and Local Government, declared that it was the Government's policy to enact a "free market in land". If it was not idiocy, the right hon. Gentleman should be accused of treachery to the true interests of the people.
These are the things that affect the cost of living, these are the things that ensure Coat house prices and the cost of housing go up by 11 per cent. Farmland is worth about £250 an acre. It was reported only a few weeks ago that 170 acres of farmland were to be "released"


as the phrase is, for residential development. The value of large building sites, as opposed to farmland, is not £250 an acre, but £10,000 an acre. That means that the price of that 170 acres at Bishop's Stortford has been increased from £42,500 to £1·7 million. But we must keep the wage earner down to 3½ per cent.!
There was another case at Potter's Bar. Where is the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod)? I am not surprised that he refused to serve in the present Government. A plot of land in his constituency was required for a school in 1958, when the price was £769. In the meantime, the Home Secretary's Bill became law—supported by all hon. Members opposite—and, thanks to that Act, the price of the land in question, when finally acquired last July, had gone up from £769 to £30,000. Who pays for that? In the end, it is the ratepayer and the taxpayer.
I give one further example from Enfield, where the council fought a "disastrous decision"—not the decision of the right hon. Gentleman who refused to serve, but a decision by the Minister of Housing about a compulsory order on a 12-acre site at Lavender Hill for allotments. The council wanted to preserve the land for allotments, but only a week or two ago the present Minister of Housing held that the council must pay housing land rates. Three years ago, a private investment company bought this land for £7,500. Its cost today for use as allotments will be £¼ million. A free market in land, indeed! And 3½ per cent!
Is it surprising that the Co-operative Building Society reported last year that the average increase in house prices was nearly 9 per cent.? New houses are beyond the range of four out of five families—they cannot begin to afford them—to a large extent because of the increased price of land, not because of the wages of the building workers. Since the last General Election—when hon. Members opposite will remember that we were to keep prices down—house prices in the country as a whole have gone up by 25 per cent., and in London and the South-East they have gone up by 63 per cent.
I wonder how many speculators are licking their lips and wondering what

is to be in the report on the future of the South-East, and how much money they will make out of that? But let us keep the wage-earner to 3½ per cent. Prices have risen four times as fast as building costs.
Last night, the Prime Minister declared that he was engaged in an all-out war on rising prices. Is land a non-combatant in this battle? Is it flying the white flag of surrender? Such examples as I have given make a mockery of any pretence of sincerity in the Prime Minister to talk about launching an all-out war. When interviewed on television recently, the Prime Minister was asked why he could not get interest rates down. He did not answer that question, but said:
I expect you are thinking probably of the price of land. You can either nationalise, and in a way if I may use the term, confiscate the land or else you roust let the market work … We do not think there is any half-way house. We think you must either deal with it as we are dealing with it now or you must have complete nationalisation.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Hear, hear.

Mr. Callaghan: I challenge hon. Members opposite to put fairly and squarely before the people whether they would prefer a free market in land or the public ownership of land that is ripe for building development. I challenge them to do that, and I will stand by the result. Unlike so many hon. Members opposite, there are thousands of young families who know what a free market means to the blighting of their hopes.
I come next to the problem arising out of rating increases. I apologise for all these figures, but it is important to write these things into the record. Out of a list of 238 rating authorities, 17 show decreases in rates and 221 show increases.
Now,
said the Prime Minister, when he addressed the Conservative Central Council,
we are having a review of this and of what should be the proper relationship between central Government finance and local government finance.
Why did the party opposite not start before last October? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) said yesterday, the Chancellor has been in and around the Treasury


for the last 12 years, in one form and capacity or another.
Why wait? It is not as if no one foresaw this problem. We have had the troubles of rating, derating, rerating, and the giving of relief from rates for particular purposes and because of hardship, over the last seven years. Why wait until the Conservative conference, last October, before announcing a review of the relationship between central and local government finance?
There will be further increases in rates which will arise directly from the Chancellor's decision a fortnight ago to increase the Bank Rate. This will have a serious effect on borrowing by local authorities. Glamorgan County Council has a short-term debt of about £6 million. The short-term rates reacted immediately to increases in the Bank Rate. The overdraft terms offered to Glamorgan by its bank were immediately increased by 1 per cent., an increase which will cost the county council about £40,000 per annum.
In Glamorgan, housing is the responsibility not of the county council but of district councils. I estimate, and this is entirely my own figure, that between £15 million and £20 million will be borrowed on short-term by them in 1964–65. The increase in their charges arising out of the decision to increase the Bank Rate will be at least £150,000 all of which will be visited in one form or another on the ratepayer or the taxpayer.
In Cardiff, we have short-term borrowings of about £30 million for varying periods between seven days and 12 months. The average increase in the cost of borrowing is about ½per cent. since the increase in the Bank Rate. This will mean for Cardiff alone an extra burden of £200,000 per annum. This is equal to a 4d. rate. Some will be recovered by putting up the rents of council house tenants, some by an increase in the general rates, some through rent deficiency payments, some through general grant, but one way or another the additional cost to the people of Cardiff will be 4d. in the £ on the rates.
I asked the Chancellor last week what he intended to do to insulate the domestic economy against the effect of

the increases Bank Rate, because he told us, and we always understood, that the purpose of the increase was not to slow down the economy but to prevent the outflow of funds. Why should the Chancellor visit his failure in terms of protecting sterling on to the Cardiff City Council?
I turn next to industry. Total borrowings from the London clearing banks at the last recorded date were £4,169 million. An increase of 1 per cent. means an increase of £41 million a year in interest payments. Let us assume that two-thirds of this is paid by trade and industry. This means that by the Chancellor's own decision last Thursday week a further £25 million a year is the burden being placed upon trade and industry purely in additional interest charges.
What is industry doing in face of this? Precious little. We are living in free and easy conditions in which it is easy to put up prices. There is a condition of near-full employment. Unemployment is going down. The General Election is coming on. There is a condition in which demand is increasing. All the conditions are ripe for manufacturers to add a bit on to the prices, and that is what they are doing in a number of cases. Their aim should be to get prices down, but is it? Can hon. Members opposite who represent big business faithfully swear to the Committee that they are all aiming all the time to get prices down? I very much doubt it, and I would not believe it if they said it.
Let us consider recent company results. The Financial Times of 9th March shows the results in the chemical industry. It quoted seven companies which paid out last year 17.2 per cent. more in dividends than they paid out in the previous year. Not much talk of 3½ per cent. there. Three companies in the furniture and floor coverings trade paid out 16·3 per cent. more in ordinary dividends than in the previous year. I could quote many specific examples from the Financial Times but I will not name them. A food manufacturing and distribution firm paid 12½ per cent. more, a domestic gas appliance firm paid 15 per cent. more.
How does the Chancellor think that this appeals not only to trade unionists, who are asked to confine themselves to


3½ per cent., but to hundreds of thousands of people who are getting along just above the poverty line and who are wondering each week how they will balance their accounts?
The National Incomes Commission, in paragraph 185 of its Report on the Construction Industry, said, in July last, that
Our conclusion is that there is now an urgent case in the national interest for a representative survey of the policies and practices in relation to pricing, profit margins and dividends in separate branches of the construction industry, particularly in view of the decade of further expansion on which this industry is about to embark.
The Chancellor announced on the same day that new steps would have to be taken to obtain a more detailed breakdown of profit figures. He said that he had begun discussions with the F.B.I. This was last July. It does not take as long as that if one wants a report. What has the right hon. Gentleman been doing since then to get the breakdown of profits and dividend margins in the building industry? Has he any progress to report? If he had been as urgently minded about this as he is about keeping wages down he would have seen a report long ago.
My complaint is that the Chancellor and the Government are squint-eyed about this. They see everything wrong about raising wages and they have practically nothing to say about rising prices even when they are not responsible, and when they are responsible they are even more determined to shrug off responsibility and to know nothing about what is going on. Lord Robens made a strong attack on the engineering industry on 10th January, when he said that the Coal Board's purchasing department was deluged with letters from suppliers of engineering machinery and equipment asking for price increases of between 4½ per cent. and 8 per cent. The Financial Times reported the following week that on the very afternoon on which the engineering wage agreement was reached roneoed sheets, substituting new prices for old, were delivered to the Coal Board and many other people.
We are all indebted to the Purchasing Officers' Association and to the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery), who, I believe, is its director, for the

work which it has done not only in bringing the facts to light, but also in giving the Chancellor and the "Minister for Party Propaganda" something to answer for. The Association says, in its conclusions, that there was a
definite price drift upwards because the climate was considered opportune.
I assure hon. Members that this is a thought that is most present in the minds of many in the manufacturing industry.
"Business is better, so we put prices up" is the motto and the text. Research shows that many engineering firms mentioned in this memorandum have been attempting to pass on to industry the whole of the recent wage increase. It has been completely unjustified. Figures show that in general mechanical engineering the relation of wage costs to total costs is about 33 per cent. One would think from the way that some people talk that wage costs made up the whole cost of an industry. In fact, as everybody who has studied this matter knows, they do not. They do not even make up the major proportion of the cost of an industry.
I have had some figures produced showing wage costs as a proportion of the total variable costs in a number of specimen industries. I have had to base myself on the 1958 census of production and, therefore, I say now that the figures may have varied, but I do not suppose that they vary as much as all that. If we take the ratio of wages to total costs in industry this is what it looks like: machine tools 33 per cent., scientific intruments 28·5 per cent., general chemicals 13·5 per cent., fertilisers 15·1 per cent., and motor vehicles 16 per cent.; 16 per cent. represents the proportion of wages in the total bill.
What is the excuse? What possible justification have these people got? What a brass neck they have, when wages go up by 5 per cent., to say "We are going to put 5 per cent. on our prices." It is absolute effrontery. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer have any words of condemnation for it? [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Let us be fair. He uttered a toot on his penny whistle last January. On the 24th of that month he said that he was concerned. I have examined his speeches since then. He has had a great deal to say about wage increases, but


very little to say about increases in prices. I hope that this afternoon I shall shame him into saying something on the subject.
I could go on giving a number of these illustrations, but I do not intend to do so because I think I have given enough to illustrate my point that although, naturally, wages are important, and we are in favour of an incomes policy, nevertheless the fact remains that it is sheer effrontery and throwing dust in the eyes of people to pretend that a wage increase of 5 per cent. in the engineering industry means that prices should go up by 5 per cent. At the most, they should go up by half that amount, and that is being jolly generous to the engineering employers.
I believe that many industrialists do not agree with the Chancellor at all. They agree with the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). [An HON. MEMBER: "Where is he"?] I do not know where he is. I suppose that he is entitled not to be here if he so wishes. This is the philosophy of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, speaking of the responsibilities of management and on the proposition that management should accept the responsibility for prices.
The right hon. Gentleman said:
Managements have no business to accept any such responsibility. The duty of every management is to conduct the business, including the price policy of business, in the way which, in the opinion of the management, is likely to maximise the return on the capital invested in the business. … In some circumstances, returns will be maximised by keeping prices stable or reducing them. But in other circumstances returns will be maximised by raising prices. Wherever that is so, it is the responsibility and duty of the management concerned to raise its prices, whether in the home or in the export market. A management which does not do this betrays more than the shareholders in the business it betrays the employees and the nation as a whole.
There are a good many firms which share that philosophy. This is why it should have been the bounden duty of the Chancellor to have constantly pressed home his point of view on this matter. The Chancellor has made no attempt to dissociate himself publicly from that speech. I ask him this afternoon whether he will repudiate the right hon. Gentleman's philosophy in this matter. Will he repudiate the right hon.

Gentleman and tell us that he does not accept this view which the right hon. Gentleman has put forward? "Business is better. Let us put prices up", is too often the motto of industry, and it has been shown today by the purchasing officers and a great many other people, too.
It is no use hon. Members shaking their heads—

Captain Walter Elliott: The statement which the hon. Gentleman has read out pointed out that, on occasions, prices should be reduced.

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. and gallant Member is entitled to read the statement and make something different out of it. I have read what the right hon. Gentleman said.
I come to my conclusion, and I am sure that there are some who will be glad to hear that. The Prime Minister has said that he has declared an all-out war on rising prices. He said so last night, when addressing the faithful. I have made a list. He has declared an all-out war on all rising prices, except on rising rents, the decontrol of tenanted properties, the price of land, higher dividends and profits, manufacturers' price margins, and higher bank and interest rates. Subject to that, he has declared an all-out war.
I must say that the sword will be rusty in its scabbard if the right hon. Gentleman fights on that basis. He reminds me of a story—I believe that it is true—of the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), when he was Leader of the Opposition. He was trying to conduct a fierce attack on the Labour Government of the day. The Member who should have been doing it did not arrive on time. He came in late and sat down beside the right hon. Gentleman, who, with his usual tenacity, was nudging him and trying to get him up to attack the Government. He said that he did not want to do so. "That's right", said the right hon. Gentleman, "That is typical of you. You always arrive late on the battlefield, and when you get there you won't fight.".
I must say that that is typical of the way the Prime Minister is conducting this all-out battle against rising prices. When the Chancellor spoke to the Conservative Association he had very little


to say about rising prices. Indeed, I cannot trace that he made any significant comment on the subject at all. He made lots of references to increased wages, but very few to increased prices.
Let us consider what the right hon. Gentleman might have done. Let us consider what the Minister of Economics in Germany, Dr. Erhard, did when faced with rising prices in 1962. Does the Chancellor remember how Dr. Erhard sent for the motor car manufacturers and threatened to reduce tariffs unless they kept their prices at a steady level? Has he considered whether he should apply that sort of tactic in this country? I do not know whether it was bluff on Dr. Erhard's part, but it worked.
What has the right hon. Gentleman done about examining profit margins? Why does he accept so supinely that 16 per cent. is the sacrosanct return on net assets? Was it so before the war? I believe that it was lower. Because it is now regarded as sacrosanct that one should obtain 16 per cent. on one's net assets, the nationalised industries are forced into earning 8 per cent., 10 per cent. and 12 per cent. on their net assets. Why? Has the Chancellor any views on whether 16 per cent. is the right figure as a return on net assets or not? Has he found out why prices in capital intensive industries are not coming down as they should have been? It is not enough to say, "We are holding them level." Some of these prices should and could have been reduced.
What has the right hon. Gentleman got to say about controlling land prices so that he will be able to reduce the cost to the ratepayer as well as to the Exchequer of the increased price of land in relation to housing? What has he got to say about keeping dividends in line with wages? He knows that dividends are moving ahead much faster than the 3½ per cent. which he has laid down for wages. What will he do about keeping down interest rates? Will he restore rent control? Here are the ways of controlling the cost of living and keep prices down. We believe in an incomes policy. We believe that this is the way to secure social justice. This is the way to protect the weak.
We believe that this is the way in which we could get a measure of equality as well as maintain the real standard of living of the people. If the Chancellor were to concentrate as much on high prices as he has concentrated on wage increases over the past three years, we might be prepared to take him more seriously when he says that he is seeking an incomes policy. However, there is precious little evidence that either he or the Government are doing so.
Apart from the economic reasons which I have given, there are the human reasons, the plight of hundreds of thousands of people in this country, old-age pensioners, young families and the rest. I get letters every day. People seem to think that I am already the Chancellor of the Exchequer—perhaps I never shall be; that is up to my right hon. Friend—but I get all the letters which the right hon. Gentleman fails to answer.
In addition to dealing with people's Income Tax and the rest, I receive most pathetic letters day after day—I am sure that the Chancellor must have them, too—from middle-aged people, from people on the point of retiring, who, because of the increase in rates and the cost of living, say that they cannot even keep themselves in the home in which they intended to live during their later years. This sort of thing has an effect. I wish that the Chancellor did not have a private secretary, so that he might have to read some of the letters himself.
When the Prime Minister tells us that the Conservatives have made a break-through to abundance, I wonder what sort of world he is living in. He must be well insulated from hardship, I suppose, moving from a great country house to No. 10 Downing Street, Anyone who has had any experience of life knows that it is not true. There are people who are in desperate hardship and poverty today, so talk about moving into an era of abundance is, to my mind, no more than a scriptwriter's phrase. It is a great pity that the Prime Minister does not get out into the country to see these things for himself. Some of us have experienced hardship and we know it. We know what it means to people, and we are not content to have our people sacrificed to the need for another Tory victory. That is why we shall expose


the Government's record. We shall fight them to the end to ensure that, after the coming election, we get a Government who will put their priorities in the proper order.

4.42 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Reginald Maudling): The hon. Member for Cardiff, South East (Mr. Callaghan) made a speech which was racy and vigorous. I am sorry that he had also to be both selective and, at times, offensive. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, that is perfectly true. I would like the hon. Gentleman to know that I read every letter which is addressed to me at No. 11 Downing Street.

Mr. Harry Randall: But what does the right hon. Gentleman do about them?

Mr. Maudling: I do a good deal. What we are doing for people is a great deal better than the party opposite would do today.
I would like the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East also to know that, in all the speeches I make about prices and incomes, I couple together the level of incomes and profit margins. If he would rave the goodness to read my speeches, instead of merely attacking them, he might be a more effective debater.
Listening to the hon. Gentleman's speech, it struck me that no one would have thought that he was representing a party in whose few years of government the value of the £ fell by 26 per cent., the average level of retail prices rose by over 5 per cent. a year, culminating, in their last year of office, in an increase of 12 per cent. in the level of prices in a single year. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Korean war?"] Yes, there were difficulties. There always are difficulties.
The hon. Gentleman did not mention that import prices were up 5½ per cent. on a year ago and that imported food prices were up by 18 per cent. on 1961. We have had difficulties, too, but right hon. and hon. Members opposite did precious little about them. Throughout the months of 1951, as the problems grew, they did nothing to deal with the impending crisis and they passed the burden on to us. [HON. MEMBERS: "Twelve years."] I am going back 12

years because it was the last time that they had any responsibility, and they have shown precious little sign of having learned anything in the meantime.
The cost of living is only one aspect of the broad problem of the standard of living. Let us for a moment set against the woeful picture which the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East tried to paint what has actually happened to the standard of living in this country in the past 12 years. Let us look at the facts. Our standard of living has risen at an unprecedented speed during the past 12 years, more than in the 50 years before. My right hon. Friend who is now Foreign Secretary, set in 1954, the target of doubling the standard of living in 25 years. The party opposite scoffed at that, but we have been on the target ever since.
It is not only a matter of consumption, it is not only a matter of living standards and of what people enjoy and have to spend their money on. It is a matter, also, of the social services, housing and schools. Look at the quality of the schools now compared with what it was 12 years ago. Look at the increase in expenditure on education. When we took over, 3 per cent. of our national income went on education. We put it up from 3 per cent. to 4 per cent., and on to 5 per cent., and it is going up all the time.
All these are clear, definite and concrete examples of the advances in living standards in this country which have been achieved in the past 12 years and which no amount of selective statistics——

Mr. Harold Wilson: Mr. Harold Wilson (Huyton) rose——

Mr. Maudling: I am sorry that the Leader of the Opposition does not like the facts, but they cannot be expunged from the record.

Mr. Wilson: The trouble is that I have heard quite a lot of this from the right hon. Gentleman before in the past few years, and I know what is coming next. However, since I have been here for the past hour, perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will tell us why the Prime Minister is not here so that he might take a little economic education of the kind which the Chancellor has obviously failed to give him?

Mr. Maudling: A tinge of offensiveness seems to be appropriate this afternoon. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman will await a little economic education. He is more in need of it than the Prime Minister.
I was saying that the level of prices is only part of the standard of living. What determines the standard of living, of course, is the extent to which production rises and the development of the production of wealth in the country. But prices are an essential factor, of course, because one can have rising production and rising wealth with rising prices, in which case some people tend to get left behind—not the wage earner, who has in recent years seen his wages advance faster than prices, not the pensioner, who, under Conservative Governments, has seen his pension advancing faster than prices, but the people living on small fixed incomes. It is precisely because of the difficulties of this group that, for internal reasons, we could not be complacent about a development of our total wealth and prosperity which was accompanied by rising prices.
Equally, on the external side, we see that rising prices affect this country particularly. In France, for instance, there was rising wealth accompanied by succesive devaluations. This is not a possibility which we could contemplate in this country. We must aim both at rising total wealth and total output and at stability of prices so far as possible with rising total wealth for internal social reasons and for external reasons as well.

Mr. Walter Monslow: What the right hon. Gentleman has just said about pensions is a fairy story which the Tory Party is telling also on the hoardings. Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the purchasing value of the£has fallen in the period which he has mentioned and that there have on two occasions been increased contributions to the National Insurance Fund?

Mr. Maudling: Of course I am aware of that. That is the point I was making. The real value of social benefits under Conservative Governments has been rising and has risen a great deal. For good measure, I remind the House that,

under the last Labour Government, it did precisely the opposite. These are the facts.
We had from the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East some examples of the way prices have been moving. In fact, recent experience has been that, over the last 12 months or so, prices in general have risen by about 2 per cent. and within that the food price index has risen slightly less than the total index. For once in a while, we did not hear about comparisons with continental European experience. So often in the past, we have had the league tables trotted out, but not today. Let us look for a moment at the league table for last year, showing how prices have risen on the Continent. In Italy, they have risen by 7·5 per cent.; in France, 6·4 per cent.; Holland, 3·9 per cent.; Belgium, 3·5 per cent.; Germany, 3·4 per cent.; Sweden, 3 per cent., and in the United Kingdom, 2·2 per cent. On this occasion, we have been doing very much better than the continental countries. That is why we did not hear about it from the hon. Member this afternoon. [HON. MEMBERS: "1959."] 1959? I cannot give the figure offhand; 1963, of course, is different.

Mr. William Hamilton: Who is being selective now?

Mr. Maudling: I am selecting recent experience because the hon. Member for Cardiff South-East, who normally raises this point when it suits him, failed to mention it this afternoon when it did not suit him.

Mr. Richard Marsh: To be even more fair, would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to tell us how many European countries had an even bigger rise in prices than Britain during the last 10 years?

Mr. Callaghan: Not likely. He will not tell us that.

Mr. Maudling: During the last 10 years, France and Sweden. Holland was about the same. In Italy, Germany, Switzerland and Belgium, they are lower. Time and time again in the last 10 years, when conditions have been against us the party opposite has a great deal to say; when things are for us, hon. Members opposite ignore them.
We are coming to the point, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East fairly pointed out, when there is liable to be growing pressure on prices. Import prices, in particular, have risen by 5½ per cent. during the last 12 months. This is bound to reflect itself, and to some extent is doing so, in the wholesale price index. This is happening, as the hon. Member rightly said, also at a time when, with rapidly growing production, and unemployment falling, there is obviously a tendency for prices to go up. I agree with the hon. Member that this is a time when profit margins tend to rise. Equally, it is a time when wage drift also becomes more important.
If the hon. Member suggests that I am selective—I do not think so, but I believe that he is—he must not take one side without the other. He must squarely face the fact that in the present conjuncture there is a tendency for earnings to rise more than wage rates, and for wage incomes and profit margins to go up. That is why we have come to a particularly important stage in our affairs when we must make a conscious effort to try to establish stabilisation of prices, which can be done only by a determination to hold both the price front and the wage front.
I join the hon. Member in welcoming the interesting examinations made by the Director-General of N.E.D.C. under the authority of the Council of N.E.D.C., which has produced the results which the hon. Member quoted about the five basic industries and which was followed, I was Interested to see, by the road hauliers, who postponed or decided against a 5 per cent. increase in their charges which previously they had contemplated.

Sir S. McAdden: Would my right hon. Friend be prepared to comment upon the rather urbane attitude of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who completely ignored my invitation to him to tell us what dramatic reductions in prices had been made by the nationalised industries?

Mr. Maudling: That, I thought, needed no further comment.

Mr. Callaghan: I am sure that it is within the Chancellor's recollection that we all agreed that coal was keeping its

prices fairly level; that was a fairly considerable achievement, and I said so. In the gas and electricity industries, increases in price are due to the Government's financial policy in enforcing certain obligations upon them. As to transport—the Chancellor will be able to check this—I believe I am right in saying that in the retail price index, which includes all costs of transport, it shows no increase over the period of the last 12 months taken by the Chancellor.

Mr. Maudling: I agree that coal has been doing well, but the pressure on prices in the other nationalised industries comes not by any means solely from Government policy, but from wage increases in those industries. It is bound to do so.
In view of the enormous proportion of the national investment which is done by the nationalised industries, it would be economic folly not to insist upon their showing a proper economic return on that investment. [Interruption.] The figures and the targets at which they are aiming have been agreed with them. If they do not earn an economic return. there is danger of misdirection and misapplication of a large amount of important national capital. If they do not raise a reasonable proportion of the money for their expansion, it must come fro as elsewhere and ultimately from the Budget. These are the facts which must be recognised. There is no shuffling away from them.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The Chancellor gives preferential treatment to private industry. He gives it to his hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir G. Nabarro). He was the one who said "Go to the money market." Of course, he has got preferential treatment.

Sir S. McAdden: Then why does not the hon. Member start a factory?

Mr. Maudling: If the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis) thinks that the ability to raise capital with a Government guarantee is the opposite of preference, he should think again.
In looking at the factors contributing to rising prices, let us look at the main


causes of the rises. First, there are import prices, and secondly, domestic costs. Those are the two elements which decide the level of prices in this country: first, the price of our imports; and secondly, the amount which we add here in costs. Of the two, the cost of incomes—wages, salaries and profits—is about three times as important as the cost of imports. I had this calculation made for me today.
I do not go all the way with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) in his economic views, but I go along very much with him in saying that the law of supply and demand is what determines price; we cannot get away from it. We can operate in both of these directions. We can increase the supply, and we can moderate the demand. We are trying to increase the supply by measures to expand production. We are moderating the demand with an incomes policy. In the long run, however, prices will be determined by those two factors interacting. Whatever is done on a temporary, artificial basis, we cannot, in the long run, get away from this fundamental equation.
Therefore, the two important elements in the level of prices are first, import prices, and secondly, and more important, the amount which we add to the prices of imports by the costs which we generate in this country.

Mr. Callaghan: This is an important point. If the Chancellor really means what he says, that it is the job of manufacturers to maximise their prices, which is what his right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) was saying—the Chancellor agreed that he went a long way with him —[Interruption.] Let me put it this way. Prices are determined by the laws of supply and demand. Does this apply also to wages? If so, what hope is there for an incomes policy?

Mr. Maudling: I cannot have made myself clear. I agree that prices are settled by supply and demand and the interaction of the two. What we are trying to do, however, is to increase the supply, by expanding production and to moderate the demand by encouraging moderation in wages and in profits. This is where I do not go all the way with

my right hon. Friend, because I think that we can. The essence of an incomes policy is to ensure that the demand factor in the price equation is less than it otherwise would be.
Looking, first, at import prices, obviously there is not much that we can do to influence the level of world prices. Commodity prices have recently been rising, partly because in many cases they have been at a very low level. Recently, there have been particular circumstances, such as the Russian wheat failure, which put up the price of wheat, the sugar crop failure in Cuba and the coffee troubles in Brazil. There are many reasons why import prices have been forced up by external circumstances over which we have no control.
We have, I believe, under the free system which we have, the facility to buy our raw materials as cheaply as any other country and, indeed, more cheaply than many of our competitors. We have the freest market for food in any Western country. The new policies which we are developing are designed, not to put up the general level of food prices, but to bring more stability to the market when excessive fluctuations follow the disposal of overseas surpluses. In recent years, these have produced fluctuations in market prices which have brought little benefit to the consumer but a considerable burden to the taxpayer.
As to import prices, what we must always attempt to do is to give full rein and opportunity to our merchants to search the world for the cheapest sources of supply which they can find. This is a job which they carry out extremely well. The biggest element in the level of prices, however, is the costs which we generate inside this country, and within this the biggest single element is the wage bill. That is a fact, and I do not think anyone will try to get away from it.
I said that one of the ways in which we can work on the level of prices is by encouraging an increase in production, and our whole policy, with the help of N.E.D.C., is to expand the growth of production and to bring more human and physical resources into employment by training and retraining and by the massive measures which we have brought in to stimulate investment in


areas of high unemployment, which are beginning to show good results, and by the improvement in the depreciation allowances for industry which are the best system in any of the Western industrial countries.
All these are measures designed and calculated, and certain to produce results, to promote greater efficiency and production. It is along the line of greater efficiency and production that we are most likely to achieve a proper holding of the level of prices. We are also trying to encourage in every way competition. I will not go over the debate of yesterday—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—because it is still familiar in my mind, but no one can doubt our determination to achieve all that we can in the way of competition bringing its effect on prices.
With regard to what the hon. Gentleman said about tariffs, it is often asked, why not bring down tariffs and put more competition on manufacturers? I have always looked on tariff bargaining rather like Lord Chandos once said: "Look for a quid pro quo and thirty bob pro quo if you can get it." But I would point out that the reducing of tariffs on imported manufactured goods is at variance with putting controls on imported manufactured goods which the party opposite advocates.
The basic requirement is to hold incomes and prices as steady as we can at a period of economic development, when, as I certainly believe, there are very good and possibly unprecedented chances of moving from the present very vigorous rate of expansion to a long-term rate of growth at a level which we have not achieved before. This cannot be done by price controls. We cannot have statutory price controls over a wide area, and, on the whole, price controls tend probably to aggravate the problem because they create scarcities. The basic problem must be to get the level of incomes in line with the level of productivity because it is the balance of supply and demand which settles prices. We can get it right only by providing more supply, and controls do the opposite of that.
Here, I think, the Opposition could perhaps have been a little better employed trying to help forward these matters rather than pursuing the lines

which they lave. Take, for example, N.I.C. A lot has been said about N.I.C., but I think that any incomes policy for this country, and it is agreed that we shall need an incomes policy, will require an organisation like N.I.C. for very good reasons. First, because, though it is possible to agree on the general principles, when it comes to applying them to the individual case that is where the difficulty arises. Everyone says 3½ per cent. or 4 per cent. as an average level, with special cases at 6 per cent. or 7 per cent.
How do we give justice to special cases? Often people who have not great battalions to push their interests forward have a claim to justice but not any force. These are the people whose interests we want to watch. I want these cases to remain the exception and not to become the general average.
Equally, of course, the purpose of N.I.C. is to look not merely at wage levels but also at price levels. I have taken particular trouble to ensure that N.I.C. in dealing with the engineering industry should consider in great detail not only the wages side but also the effect of costs and prices. I am glad that this evidence should have been put forward by the Purchasing Officers' Association. That is precisely what N.I.C. was designed to do.
I tried, as I think the Committee is aware, in the National Economic Development Council and elsewhere to get agreement that there should be some interim means of stabilising incomes and prices because it is going to take a long time to work out a complete incomes policy. All Western countries are trying to edge towards such a policy and all find it difficult. In the meanwhile, in the next year or two, with this problem of transition before us and these great opportunities, I should have thought that managements and unions could have combined with the Government to try and find some agreed statement of principles both of wage increases and price increases which would enable the country as a whole to enjoy the benefits of more stable prices. That seems to me to be a very reasonable objective at which to aim, and I hope that the Opposition will support us in it.

Mr. Callaghan: The Chancellor will remember what he was told by the


General Secretary of the T.U.C. when he asked for a joint statement that we should not increase prices and wages. He said, "That is like saying that the Atlantic is wet and gets you nowhere."

Mr. Maudling: He was not prepared to agree to it. It is not very helpful.
We are agreed that we cannot get a complete incomes policy for some time, but why not try to get something? This is what I have been trying to do. I have been trying over the last few months, and my main efforts have been to get agreement between managements, unions and the Government on some method of voluntary restraint of prices and wages——

Mr. E. G. Willis: And rents.

Mr. Maudling: Yes, and rents.
Prices are the key, not profits. If we get prices rising at a reasonable level then the totality of profits cannot go up any more. We must have within industry flexibility and to have only a single level of profitability or dividend increase would be disastrous for the expansion and prosperity of British industry.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has admitted this in saying that statutory limitation is not a good thing. We hear of lot about wages and profits. Over the last two years profits were actually falling while wages were rising, and if profits are now rising faster they are only catching up. In fact, profits are now a substantially lower part of the income of the country than they were 10 years ago. Whatever may be said by the party opposite about profits, it is a fact that income from employment, wages and salaries, is now a much larger proportion of our total income than it was 10 years ago. This should not be obscured.
I have talked about import prices and incomes and their effect on the level of prices. I now want to come to two other things before I finish, because they are the other two main factors in the equation. The first is the level of Government expenditure. There can be no doubt that Government expenditure has its effect on prices, and it has been rising rapidly in the last few years and will be rising rapidly again in the coming year. It will not rise so fast

as in the year before. It is rising at a rate of something like 6 per cent, or 7 per cent., at a level faster than the long-term growth of the national income, and this is putting an increasingly heavy burden on the economy, from which we do not shrink.
I have made it quite clear that we shall not try to disguise the effect of the level of growth of Government expenditure on the economy. But what about the party opposite. It has a programme which it claims is much bigger than ours. It is more houses—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—Yes.

Mr. Callaghan: No.

Mr. Maudling: No more houses? Good.

Mr. Callaghan: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that this discussion will be out of order unless the Chairman rules otherwise. The fact is, and he knows it, that he or the Prime Minister has said that we are going to have a figure of 400,000 houses and that he has been told that the construction industry will not be able to meet such a target. We have never committed ourselves to a figure in excess of that because it would be irresponsible so to do. Before the right hon. Gentleman continues, will he particularise and say in relation to what fields the programmes which he has taken over from us—[HON. MEMBERS: "No".]—that is what the argument is about—hospitals, schools and roads. The Government have taken over the programmes which we had enunciated. Will the Chancellor please tell us whether there are any other differences and what other policies of ours he has not yet taken over?

Mr. Maudling: That is what I propose to do. I do not think that I would be out of order in referring to the Labour Party's policy on prices. I also referred to houses, however. I thought that the Labour Party wanted to build more houses. Is that not the case? Are hon. Members opposite now saying that the higher rates of Government expenditure on schools and universities are enough? Is our expenditure on roads high enough? How about the Labour Party's pensions plan? Will it cost £800 million or £1,600 million? Hon. Members opposite do not know, or will not


say. What about subsidised interest rates to local authorities? What about the National Health Service charges? We have not been told what any of these things would cost.

Mr. Callaghan: The prescription charges cost about £66 million in a Budget of £8,000 million. The superannuation scheme, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, is self-financing. He should read the pamphlets if he wants to refer to our policy. I know that he would like to get away from a discussion of his own Government's record, but if he is to tell half-truths he should make sure of his facts.
As for schools, hospitals and roads, he knows that the Government have stepped up their promises in the last six months in terms that they do not intend to honour. Such programmes could not be exceeded by any party with any degree of responsibility. The question at issue is whether the Government will or intend to fulfil their promises. On the basis of their performance in the last 12 years, the answer is "No".

Mr. Maudling: This is extremely interesting. The Opposition now accept our roads, schools, hospital and housing programmes—[Interruption.]

Mr. Callaghan: No, you have taken over our programmes.

Mr. Maudling: Our programmes are based on our achievements. If education expenditure is to be further increased, this is because of our achievements so far. If, under the Labour Party's policy, there is to be no increase in taxation as a result of the superannuation scheme and no increase in National Insurance charges we shall be very surprised. That has not been said yet by the party opposite. If "self-financing" means that no one pays, that is fine. If it means, "You all pay", that is another matter.

Mr. Callaghan: The right hon. Gentleman is being grossly unfair. The subject was the level of Government finance. I am telling him now—although I am sure that he knows it already—that the superannuation scheme will be self-financing. That has nothing to do with the level of Govern-

ment financing. Let the right hon. Gentleman get back to his own record, if he is not too ashamed of it.

Mr. Maudling: The hon. Gentleman has not understood the economic argument—the effect of these things is an increased load on the economy.

Mr. Callaghan: What about the Government's expenditure?

Mr. Maudling: Whatever is put on by way of taxation or social insurance is a load on the economy and will put up prices.

Mr. Callaghan: We know that.

Mr. Maudling: Then why not admit it?
We have now got it clear that the Labour Party's programme is no greater than ours o, if it is greater, is more expensive. That is self-evident. We should be told which it is. If we are talking about the level of prices, then it is relevant to know. Other factors are also relevant to the level of prices. For instance, the level of savings has increased many times under this Government and nothing makes a greater contribution to the level of prices than the level of savings.
I do not believe that we shall see, under a Labour Government, the level of savings the country has seen during the last few years. [Interruption.] The Labour Party has been saying that we put up prices. We are entitled to prove that their policy will. If the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East says that I should not do so then what he is saying in effect is that he may attack me but I should not attack him.
Both in terms of expenditure and of the wealth tax, which they are trying to avoid, right hon. and hon. Members opposite have policies which will affect prices in a very bad way indeed. The performance of prices in the last year has been good. The standard of living has risen in 12 years in an unprecedented way. We are fighting the battle of holding down prices, and this depends upon the co-operation of Government, management and unions. One thing is as certain as night follows day. It is that the Labour Party's policy would send prices through the roof.

5.15 p.m.

Mrs. Harriet Slater: We have just had a fairly good economic lecture—[Interruption.] Wait for it. The right hon. Gentleman was merely using the old language that he has used throughout his years in the Government. What he has missed are the rock-bottom facts of life as they affect the ordinary people.
The Chancellor mentioned Government expenditure on various programmes. Where are the new hospitals we have been promised? Certainly not one has been built in North Staffordshire yet. He was trying to make us believe once more in the Government's promises. We now want to see something more tangible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) was wrong in one respect. This was when he said that the Government were trying to keep wages stable. Perhaps they claim that the trend for the future has been set by the fact that this week they have reduced the salary of one of their Ministers by £500. We have had a succession of different policies from the Government. One year it was, "Let us mend the hole in the purse". Then it was, "You have never had it so good". Now it is the battle to keep prices down. What are the effects of Government policy on prices so far?
Standing at 100 in 1962, the retail price index has risen to 104·7 in the last 12 months—the highest figure ever. The survey of family expenditure shows us that the biggest amounts are spent on food, rent and fuel. Obviously, the rising cost of living falls heaviest on the lower income groups, as is amply shown by food expenditures.
For instance, among those earning between £6 and £10 a week—listening to the right hon. Gentleman one would hardly think that anyone was earning less than £10 a week, but thousands are—the average expenditure on food is £3 4s. 2d. a week. Among those earning over £40 a week the average is £9 4s 1d. a week. So, obviously, any increase in prices of food falls most on those who are already the most needy.
If the Chancellor of the Exchequer wants some figures, let me quote him some of the rises of prices in basic

products, in food and clothing and durable goods. Yesterday the Government were asked about increases in bus fares, especially in those areas where the railways are being closed. This is private enterprise and not nationalised industries.
A recent Tory poster depicting what old-age pensioners have received in the last 12 years says, "Shh, we have raised it three times". Let us have some straight talking. They have raised the actual figure of the old-age pension, but, because of the rise in the cost of living and the reduction in the value of the £ since 1951, they have by no means given the increase which they suggest. The value of the £ compared with 1951 is now 13s. 9d. Has not that had an important effect on those in the low income groups? Does that not matter to the old-age pensioner? Is not that the vital figure? Let us have no more "shh", but some straight talking.
I have with me the figures of the increases in prices of basic foods. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East suggested that these increases had been imposed in preparation for the abolition of resale price maintenance, but I suggest that they are also in preparation for the Budget in case Purchase Tax goes up or down. Kellogg's Flakes, now the standard part of most people's break fasts——

Mr. Denis Howell: Mr. Denis Howell (Birmingham, Small Heath) indicated dissent.

Mrs. Slater: Oh yes they are. Children especially like the selection. The price has increased by 1½d. on a 12-oz. packet; Quaker Oats have gone up by 1d. on a 24-oz. packet; processed cheese by 1d. on a 1s. 4d. packet; Nescafé instant coffee, the loss-leaders we heard about yesterday, has gone up by 3d. on a 1s. 9d. tin, 5d. on a 3s. 4d., 10d. on a 6s. 4d., and 1s. 8d. on a 12s. 2d. tin. I am told that Maxwell House prices will go up on 30th March. Devon cream has gone up. One of the "big three" frozen food firms, Findus, has raised its prices by 1d. and 2d. according to the size of the packet of vegetables. Horlicks, marmalade, Beecham's, Eno's Fruit Salt, Phensic tablets, soap—Palmolive and Lifebuoy—tooth paste—it gets dearer and dearer to keep clean inside as well as outside—Nestlé's milk chocolate,


some biscuits, jellies—all these have become dearer.
Except for the housewife who has to do the weekly shopping, very few of these increases are noticed by hon. Members opposite. It is the woman who sees the prices of basic foods increase. The cost of margarine has risen. No doubt we shall be told that world vegetable oil prices have risen. The prices of butter and other foods have risen. Today my hon. Friends from Scotland asked questions about Scottish milk production being deliberately reduced, which means that the price to the consumer will rise because there will be a shortage of milk.
During the last 10 weeks alone, more than 200 producers of 1,000 separate items have raised prices, and during that time food prices have continued to rise, with a serious effect on the weekly budget. Prices of clothing have also risen. Any hon. Member who has bought a suit or a coat for his wife recently knows how prices of clothing have risen in the last six months. Children's clothing and durable goods have also become dearer, as have carpets and blankets.
We agree with the Chancellor that wages are an important factor in the economy, but wages have not increased at the same rate as increases in the cost of living and the cost of essential commodities in the last 12 months. It has been Government policy to cut meat subsidies, and the result is that Argentine meat prices have risen by 30 per cent. Anybody who buys a joint at the weekend knows that beef and lamb and mutton have become increasingly dearer.

Mr. A. Lewis: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that the Government have cut subsidies? Did they not give their pledged word before the last election that they would not cut subsidies?

Mrs. Slater: But what their pledged word before the last election was has no bearing on their pledged word since. We are now having other pledges and I am sure that we shall find that they have no weight.
A few weeks ago, the Financial Times said that the cost of wool-nylon carpets, which are becoming very popular, had

increased substantially from 59s. 6d. a sq. yd. to 63s. a sq. yd. The price of furniture has risen by between 2½ per cent. to 5 per cent. in the last week. Rents and rates and the cost of buying a new house have all increased. Hon. Members may recall that a few weeks ago my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) showed that land in the centre of Slough was being sold at £2 million an acre.
Today, I overheard a conversation between two hon. Members, one a Parliamentary Secretary. The other was asking for a service to be provided by a nationalised undertaking and the Parliamentary Secretary said that it was nearly impossible because the price of the land on which the building in question was to be erected had rocketed in the last six months and was continuing to rocket. The price of land thus denies a service to the people of that area. It is happening to Government building and it is happening even more sharply in the building of houses.
A newly married couple buying a new house are faced not only with increased interest rates, but with the increasing price of land which they have to pay before a brick is laid. A fortnight ago, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced an increase in interest rates and the Alliance Building Society, which had promised a reduction of¼ per cent., was forced to change its mind. The cost of building materials, too, has risen by about 4 per cent.
In some areas, where private enterprise transport undertakings operate, fare increases are being negotiated even though fares in the rural areas, which many hon. Members opposite represent, are particularly high. In addition, all transport companies are faced with the threat that in the Budget there may be a further tax on petrol and oil.
I do not believe that the ordinary people of this country—housewives, working men, old people, the people to whom the hon. Lady the Member for Tyneside (Dame Irene Ward) is always referring, those who live on fixed incomes—are going to be deluded any longer. They are the people who are made to realise, in the cruellest possible way, that the cost of living is rising, and will continue to rise. This rise is due not to an increase in the price of raw materials, but to the Government's policy.
Those are the people about whom we are speaking today. Those are the people whom we seek to serve. I am sure that when they read the Chancellor's speech tomorrow they will realise that he did not get down to brass tacks and deal with the problem as they understand it. It is because of that, and because we know that the Government's policy will continue to increase the cost of living, that we shall vote against them tonight.

5.31 p.m.

Sir Henry d'Avigdor-Godsmid: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater). She is well known in Stoke for the attention which she gives to innumerable causes, and I am glad to pay my tribute to her. I shall not follow the hon. Lady in the details of the prices which she gave of various commodities, because I am sure that she is intimately familiar with them, but I am reminded of the old music hall song
I should like to meet the man who pays the woman who pays and pays.
I am sure that the hon. Lady would not wish to mislead the Committee. The value of the retirement pension in real terms today is substantially higher than it has even been, and that is not open to contradiction, controversion, or anything else, and it should be clearly on record. I mention that en passant.

Mr. Dennis Howell: If the hon. Gentleman believes that to be true, can be explain why more people than ever before are on National Assistance? If what he is saying about the retirement pension is true, why it is that more pensioners than ever before need National Assistance?

Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the terms of National Assistance have been widened. I shall not debate those two matters because they are not germane to the subject under discussion.
There is always an element of artificiality about these debates on the cost of living. The presence of merely a handful of hon. Members shows how artificial is the interest in this subject in the Committee, though this is the topic in the country today. I am glad that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East

(Mr. Callaghan) mentioned that in the recent public opinion poll the cost of living was the main problem of 40 per cent. of the people interviewed. This is an important point. It does not seem to be one about which most hon. Members are concerned, but it is certainly one about which our constituents are concerned.
We talk about rising prices as though we as legislators have no responsibility for them. I think that we ought to consider that, because a lot of the things that we do in the House of Commons are responsible for rising prices. My right hon. Friend pointed out that the import bill is something for which we are not responsible. We are not responsible for the changes in the cost of imported raw materials, and it should not be a matter of regret that commodity prices have risen and that many of the less well-developed areas of the globe are benefiting from that rise. Those changes directly affect our prices, and there is no disguising that fact.
My right hon. Friend also talked about Government expenditure. The Government, together with the local authorities, are responsible for 40 per cent. of the total expenditure of this country. That is an enormous proportion, and I wonder whether we are reasonable in our attitude to it. After all, every time we vote money it is spent either on direct benefits to some taxpayer or citizen, or, alternatively, it goes to some form of investment for the future.
For instance, there is to be an increase in expenditure on the educational programme, and I am glad that both parties support this idea. That expenditure will not show any immediate return in economic terms. In other words, we are diverting a high proportion of the country's productive power to an educational programme which, much as we admire it, is an added cost to be borne by the economy. Much the same comment applies to defence. Our defence budget is nearly £2,000 million. Of that sum £1,000 million goes on salaries and about £1,000 million in hardware—I think that is the term of art. That money is taken out of the productive capacity of this country. We in this Committee have a responsibility for that money, because we authorise


it to be spent, and I wonder whether, if we were really single-minded in our determination to keep down prices, we would be quite so generous in all these forms of expenditure?
We all have ideas of areas in which reductions could be made, and I shall suggest a few later in my speech, but one thing that we know is that if we want prices to be stabilised, or even to come down, it is not difficult to achieve that. We had that from 1931 until the war, and we had it at the cost of great hardship indeed. I am sure that no one on either side of the Committee would want to return to that state of affairs, but that is a means of reducing the cost of living.
I remember in June, 1940, having the best meal that I have ever had in a restaurant car. It was an excellent meal for the simple reason that all the restaurant cars were being taken out of service and they were dishing up their reserves of good quality food. That is the sort of thing which brings down prices. In much the same way one would could get prices down in industry. Prices in industry do not fall because of a slackness in trade, because even if trade is slack people put their finished products by for a future occasion. Prices come down when there are bankruptcies and when goods are sold on the market for what they will fetch. If we in this Committee are so set on bringing down prices, as some of the speeches from hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to suggest, I wonder whether we are prepared to accept the implications of that, which would mean a considerable amount of slack in the economy, and a considerable number of failures and bankruptcies.

Mr. H. Hynd: The hon. Gentleman is getting away from the good point that he was making about the responsibility of the House of Commons for increasing the cost of living. Is the hon. Gentleman not going to say anything about our responsibility for increasing rents as a result of the Rent Act?

Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for that interruption, because these remedies lie with the House of Commons, and perhaps specifically with the Government.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East told us about his plans for when he is or is not Chancellor in the next Administration. I should like to leave him a single thought. Recently we have been asked to give our views about the remuneration of Members. Would not it be an encouragement to our constituents if the Government responsible for implementing the new policy fixed an appropriate figure for the remuneration of Members and reduced it in proportion to any rise in the cost of living? That would bring the facts of life home to all Members. Perhaps I should go further and say that that should apply only to Members supporting the Government party. That would be an interesting thesis, and would be a real earnest of their determination to keep prices stable.
I do not want to embark on too many details, but I think that this is a pleasant thought. If hon. Members are genuinely interested in the cost of living and in preventing it from going up, I think that they ought to accept this voluntary limitation on their salaries in the future when they are reviewed. I suspect that some statement to this effect in either side's election manifesto, or both, would be a great encouragement to the housewife and to the people who are suffering most from the cost of living.

Mr. A. Lewis: Could not the hon. Gentleman go one step further and suggest to the various ex-Ministers, particularly the ex-Minister of Defence who has taken a job at about £15,000 a year, and who attends the House only when there is a defence debate, that if they dropped their £10,000 or £15,000 a year into the Exchequer kitty, it would total up and could be used to pay those Members who have no other means? If hon. Members opposite did that and shared it out, we would do very well.

Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: The hon. Gentleman can make that point in the questionnaire that has been sent to him.

5.41 p.m.

Mr. Richard Marsh: I have been wondering for some time whether the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Sir. H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) was serious in his proposition. I am still not too sure whether he meant it seriously. The hon. Member's commercial interests,


which are, of course, entirely his own business, would, I should have thought, have marginally rather more effect on higher prices to the housewife than the marginal effect of increases in hon. Members' salaries. He might perhaps be able in his own field to see what he can do.
The thing that worries me most about this debate, and which has worried me when we have debated this subject before, is the extent to which it becomes obvious that right hon. and hon. Members opposite do not realise that there is a problem. If more evidence of this was required I think that it was given yesterday in the Aims of Industry national Gallup poll, because the Government and the Conservative Party as a whole have decided quite clearly to base their electoral campaign on the issues which they think will give them the most votes. The effect of this policy on the defence of the country does not seem to some of them to be important so long as they can get the votes on the way.
They are prepared to pay a high price with this country's prestige in the process. They put first the independent nuclear deterrent. In the Gallup poll conducted by Aims of Industry, which is not sympathetic to the Labour Party on the whole, the independent nuclear deterrent was at the bottom of the list in the public mind. The other campaign which they are pursuing is on nationalisation. In the Aims of Industry survey, this comes, I think, seventh in the list of 10 items in the public mind. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member would look carefully into the figures presented he would find that the number of people in that survey in favour of nationalisation, state control and public ownership are substantially more than half the population.
I can see that the hon. Member's statistic abilities are on a par with those of the Prime Minister. We in fact find that a large proportion of people do not regard nationalisation as a big issue. I am not arguing this point, but I think that there is a simple reason for it. For anyone of my generation or younger it is not a party political issue. The reason for this is that people younger than I am have only seen nationalised industries administered by a Conservative Govern-

ment. It is not a party political issue to them.
The most significant thing of all is that the item at the top of that poll in the public mind is the cost of living, and is the one item which the Government do not recognise as having serious political consequences. I think there is a great deal in this and that it is significant that the one item above all others which affects and worries the mass of the population of this country is the item which the Government have not noticed at all as affecting them. It seems that the hon. Member is likely to explode, so I will give way.

Sir S. McAdden: If one asks people the same question in different words three times it is not mathematically accurate to add up three lots of answers and to say that they are answers to different questions, because they are not.

Mr. Marsh: They are all different figures, and they are from different numbers of people. The one thing that emerges from this survey is that what people want, in economic terms, is more planning. They might be confused about the different forms of public ownership, but what emerges from this is that the Government and hon. Members opposite do not realise the very real hardship and the very strong feeling that exist in the country about the rising cost of living. If the "Minister of Propaganda" were getting paid out of Conservative Party funds instead of out of the taxpayers' fund, I think that it would be justified in sacking him, because clearly on this issue he has missed the point entirely.
The Chancellor's speech was another example. Everyone recognises the Chancellor's economic ability and knowledge, but he clearly did not regard this as a particularly important issue. I know that he had a bit of a knock about what the Labour Party was doing in 1945, or 1946, or 1947, but let me say one thing about what the Labour Party was doing in those years. When the Labour Government left office in 1951 Britain was the greatest industrial Power in the world outside the Soviet Union and the United States of America. I do not think that many hon. Members would suggest that that is the position today.

Captain W. Elliot: Surely the hon. Gentleman realises that Germany and Japan were absolutely bombed flat at that time?

Mr. Marsh: Whatever the reason, this country started off in 1951 when the Labour Government went out of office with a vast lead over any other industrial power outside the Soviet Union and the U.S.A.
Of course, there were many other reasons. I do not deny that for a moment. But I am saying that this is what the Government inherited in 1951. Today, Britain is by no means one of the supreme industrial Powers. I do not think that hon. Members opposite would argue about that.

Sir S. McAdden: If the position was so good—if the economy was so strong, and we were the leading industrial country with the exception of the United States and the Soviet Union—why on earth did the hon. Member's Government resign? Why did not they carry on?

Mr. Marsh: The hon. Member's interventions are deteriorating in quality as they increase in frequency. They did not resign. They were defeated.

Mr. A. Lewis: They were harried by "Boothby's harriers".

Sir Peter Roberts: Sir Peter Roberts (Sheffield, Heeley) rose——

Mr. Marsh: I am sorry, but I must get an odd word in between interventions. The Chancellor showed a healthy contempt for these league tables, and quoted last year's figures concerning the cost of living rises in comparable countries. But after 12 years of this Government, and at this distance from the end of the war, we are entitled to compare British performance today in relation to that of our competitors in the rest of the world.
I asked the right hon. Gentleman not to give last year's figures of increases in the cost of living but the ten years' figures for 1951–62, in comparison with those of other industrial countries. I chose that period, first, because we cannot obtain an accurate picture from one year's figures and, secondly, because an entire report on this subject has been

issued by O.E.C.D. comparatively recently.
The report shows that increases in consumer prices from 1951 to 1962 were as follows: France, 60 per cent.; Britain, 48 per cent.; Sweden, 46 per cent.; Norway, 44 per cent.; Holland, 27 per cent.; Italy, 27 per cent.; West Germany, [9 per cent.; the United States of America, 17 per cent.; Canada, 15 per cent; and Belgium, 14 per cent. I repeat that the British figure was 48 per cent.] would have thought that this was something with which no Government could be satisfied.
The hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne), with whom I hope to disagree on most things, has fought almost alone among his colleagues to bring home the fact that we cannot exist in a vacuum compared with other industrialised countries, and that the rise in consumer prices in this country is greater than in any comparable industrial Power, with the exception of France. This worries many people, and it obviously worries my hon. Friends. It also obviously worries the great mass of the British population, but it clearly has not even registered with the Government Front Bench.
Reference was made by my right hon. Friend to the report of the Purchasing Officers' Association. My party is receiving electoral assistance from the most extraordinary quarters, which we should acknowledge. The right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) has been of great value to us, and I hope that he will be given some sort of recognition for his efforts on our behalf in recent months. I hope that he gets a peerage. He certainly will not be back here.
The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery), who is the Director of the Purchasing Officers' Association, has also done a very good job for us through his organisation. When the Government recognise the problem of rising consumer prices they always say that it is the result of trade union pressure for higher wares. But the report shows that wage rises are not the prime factor in this problem.
Furthermore, hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who are fairly comfortably off under-estimate just how much real poverty exists in this country.


It is a different type of poverty from that which used to exist. There are not millions of bare-footed children in the streets, and there are no soup kitchens in the streets—although in one area there were a few months ago. The poverty that exists today is the poverty of those who cannot defend themselves economically and who rely upon the State, only to find that the State will not give them a decent standard of living.
Let us leave out any argument of who did which, when. I challenge any hon. Member to suggest that a retirement pensioner with no other source of income leads anything other than a squalid, deprived life. I do not know whether any hon. Member is prepared to challenge that statement.

Sir Cyril Osborne: I agree with that, but if we are to present a proper picture of our country's position in the world we ought to remember the background, part of which is the fact that 270 million people in India are said to be living on 3½d. a day. It is against that background that we must consider our position.

Mr. Marsh: I do not want to take that argument too far. I would only say that poverty is obviously infinitely greater in the under-developed areas. But poverty is even more criminal in a country which boasts of its affluence but still does not make provision for those who cannot look after themselves than it is in a country which does not have the resources to do so anyhow.
The last Ministry of Labour Gazette survey of the earnings of adult full-time males over the age of 21 stated that 27·89 per cent. were earning less than £12 per week gross. In other words, nearly one-third of our total working population in full-time employment was earning less than £12 per week gross. I am open to correction, but I do not think that any hon. Member on either side of the Committee would deny that with a gross income of that sort it is impossible to lead a comfortable and reasonable life in this country.
It is argued that this is the result of the high standards of British workmen. Hon. Members opposite seem to believe that work on the mainland of

Europe is carried out entirely by coolie labour, which works for a handful of rise. In fact, the conditions of British workmen do not measure up to those of their European competitors. I now want to refer to the United Nations Bulletin of Statistics. I am sorry to quote so many figures, but there are so many myths on this subject. The United Nations Bulletin on manufacturing industry shows that last year, on the average, the working week in Japan was 49·2 hours; in Britain it was 46·2 hours; in France, 45·8; in Switzerland, 45·6; in Germany, 44·7; in Austria, 42·6; in Canada, 40·7, and in the United States of America, 40·4.
It is clear that the British worker works one of the longest working weeks in all the industrialised countries. We therefore have a situation in which prices are rising faster than in other comparable industrial countries, but in which that rise is not due to the fact that British workmen have much better conditions than workmen on the Continent. It is clear, too, that as a result of this situation the section of the community which is least able to look after itself has to face severe hardship.

Captain W. Elliot: Hear, hear.

Mr. Marsh: I am glad to hear the hon. and gallant Gentleman say "Hear, hear". I would have thought that the economic contributions of the Prime Minister would worry hon. Members opposite even more than it worries us. The Prime Minister decided to make a speech on economics. Talk about Nero fiddling while Rome burned! I should have thought that his exercise in Coventry last night, when a battle was going on here, was a pretty fair example of this. The Prime Minister is quoted as saying last night—he had gone into this—
The Government's economic policy can be summed up in three words, Neddy, steady, go".
Well, really! Hon. Gentlemen opposite may well look a bit worried. But that is the contribution which we got from the right hon. Gentleman, and it is the sort of contribution which we have come to expect from him. He went on to say something which I think is even more serious. He gave another example of what he thought was the reason for all this. He was attacking nationalisation.


He said that nationalisation tended to create a rigid, top-heavy, bureaucratic organisation. It meant less efficiency at higher cost.
How many nationalised industries do hon. Gentlemen opposite intend to denationalise? This is important. If they do not intend to denationalise them, do they honestly think that this sort of denigration of massive British industries, of a most important section of the British economy, is of any value to the community at all? When we have industries as big economically as the National Coal Board, and the electricity and gas undertakings, do they think that it does any good whatever for the Prime Minister to denigrate them to this extent in public? I should think that State-owned industries pose a simple problem to the Government in power. Either the Government should hand them back to private industry—and, by heaven, it would be interesting to see the economic repercussions if the Government tried to do that—or those people carrying out the difficult tasks confronting the industries should be entitled to expect some degree of loyalty and support from the Government who control their industry. I hope that we shall hear less about that kind of thing.

Mr. A. E. Cooper: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House and the country what percentage of our exports are contributed by the nationalised industries?

Mr. Marsh: Well, really!

Mr. Denis Howell: What nonsense!

Mr. A. Lewis: What about the coal industry?

Mr. Marsh: One of the things which worries a lot of people is the belief that a large section of the management of British industry is hopelessly inefficient, and when one hears the economic contributions of some people who hold directorships in private industry, this fear is rapidly confirmed. The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) does not realise it, but we cannot export without basic materials. How does he think that the privately-owned steel industry would manage without the nationalised coal industry; or how either industry could produce anything without the transport services? He has

an extraordinary idea of elementary economics. May I say, for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman, that these industries represent about 20 per cent. of the British national economy—I am now attacking the Government which was yesterday attacked by the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Proud-foot)——

Mr. Wilfred Proudfoot: Mr. Wilfred Proudfoot (Cleveland) rose——

Mr. Marsh: I am sorry, I do the hon. Gentleman an injustice. There were so few supporters of the Government yesterday that I had overlooked the fact that he was one of them.
The nationalised industries make a major contribution to the economy of this country and I am surprised that this should be challenged. The argument was dealt with clearly in the Financial Times recently by George Cyriax, who showed that the nationalised industries are doing a great deal to hold down prices—a very great deal. I quote from the article:
The Board of Trade's census shows that engineering costs break down roughly into 40 per cent labour charges, 40 per cent. material costs and 20 per cent. overheads; the variations in the abour element are in the range of 33 per cent. to 40 per cent. with surprisingly few companies outside it. Thus a 5 per cent. addition to labour costs would at the outside add 2 per cent. to manufacturing costs.
The reaction of the engineering employers after they granted the engineering workers wage increases was immediate. In heavy engineering, castings, forgings, transformers and machined goods, price increases to the Coal Board were immediately set at between 3½per cent. and 5 per cent. In fact, the engineering wage increase was used by the engineering employers as an excuse to increase their prices to something like 5 per cent. to meet wage increases which would affect manufacturing costs by only about 1 per cent. The lead given in challenging that came, more than anywhere else, from the National Coal Board and Lord Robens. I think that the nationalised industries have done a good job.
It is a pity that hon. Gentlemen opposite do not attack those sections of privately-owned industry which are blatantly profiteering in this way, instead of just griping about the nationalised industries for which they


have to accept responsibility—because they are responsible for them—and which are doing a great deal to try to keep down prices.
I wish to say something about wage increases because these are always referred to. The problem is that wage claims are always settled in the full glare of publicity. Therefore, a great deal of feeling is whipped up about them. It is also a problem that in this country—as is the case in few other countries—the straight division between the two political parties leads hon. Gentlemen opposite to use attacks on the trade union movement as political weapons. I do not think that anyone would deny this. Hon. Gentlemen opposite recognise that in the public mind the Labour Party and the trade unions are very closely allied together——

Mr. Ellis Smith: So they are.

Mr. Marsh: I agree with my hon. Friend. Not only ought they to be but in this political set-up it is impossible to divide them. I wish that everyone in the T.U.C. agreed with that argument.
There is a permanent attempt to create a picture of the trade unions as being worse than they are and there are criticisms of wage increases, but I believe that the contribution by the trade unions to high prices as a result of wage increases has been greatly exaggerated. I say this because Mr. Martell and his New Daily are always trying to whip up feeling about this. They have asked over and over again for a commission of inquiry into the trade union movement. Speaking only for myself, I think that that would be a jolly good idea. I think it a good idea because I consider that the British trade union movement has a very good case which has never been put across to the British electorate.
I should like to see this argued out, particularly since we shall have to have a review of the law in view of the case of Rookes v. Barnard anyhow. So far as I am concerned, the more the facts—as distinct from the myths—are argued about constructively and the more the facts about the British workers' standard of living in relation to his colleagues on the Continent are brought out and the

more people realise the very real changes that the trade union movement has undertaken in recent years, and the positive contribution it makes to our economic life, the better it will be for the trade union movement and the Labour Party, because in this matter we have a very good case.

Mr. Monslow: I take it that my hon. Friend would couple with that an inquiry into the range of profits and dividends.

Mr. Marsh: That is an entirely different thing. I am now arguing the trade union movement per se. A wages policy is essential and we cannot have a wages policy unless we control prices, profits and rents. That is axiomatic.
I have spoken longer than I intended, but I was led astray at the beginning of my speech. This problem of rising prices is a serious one, and one which the Government have failed to face for 12 years, but the most worrying thing is that, after 12 years, they do not even recognise its existence.

6.10 p.m.

Sir Cyril Osborne: The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who opened the debate for the Opposition, made, I thought, a formidable case on internal affairs. Some of the figures he gave about purchases by Cardiff City Council are so outrageous that they should be investigated.
I agree with the hon. Member that our national distribution costs are far too high. I also agree with him that the amount of competition in the home market among our own manufacturers is far too small. We should get prices down a great deal more if there were fiercer competition in the home market. To that, extent I agree with the case that was made.
I turn to another aspect of the problem. The hon. Member ignored the overseas position. We live in a world of inflation. No Government of any kind can insulate us from the inflationary forces which are affecting all the industrial nations. We have to import practically 100 per cent. of our raw materials. The prices of those raw materials are an important factor in our cost of living, through what we have to pay ultimately for them in the shops.
Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee from time to time urge that


we should do more to help the underdeveloped countries, the poorer Afro-Asian countries. There is only one practical way in which we can help them. That is by paying more money to them for the raw materials they produce for us. The terms of trade in the last 12 or 15 years have moved enormously in our favour. Our riches have been built on their poverty.
Hon. Members must face the results of this. If we are to see that the poorer nations of the world get fairer treatment, we have to pay them more for the lead, zinc, copper or oil that they produce for us. Their costs are going up and our cost of living inevitably must be affected. It is this aspect I wish to put to the Committee.
People outside the House are not interested in what I call narrow party bickerings about whether inflation was greater under the Labour Government than it is under the Conservative Government. What they want to know is: what is the cause of inflation? What can be done to keep it down, and why are we not taking action to keep it down? They are not interested in whether, under Socialism, it went up by, say, 40 per cent. and, under the Tories, went up by 32 per cent. That does not affect them. They want to know what we are doing now to control it and, if not, why we are not doing it. I wish to call the attention of the Committee to this problem.
Hon. Members on both sides would agree with this one basic truth, that any nation which tries to live beyond its means by spending more than it is earning must inevitably run into inflation. That truth applied in classical times, in Roman times. It applies under every political system and in every country in the world. If we try to live beyond our means the cost of living must go up. No one can stop it.

Mr. Monslow: Will the hon. Member agree that we are spending in this country much more on non-productive services than we ought and, therefore, we cannot spend on what are known as the social services? We cannot do both.

Sir C. Osborne: Of course I agree with that. If we were to go, as the late Aneurin Bevan said he would never go, into an international conference naked—if we became pacifists and spent

nothing on defence—we could spend more on social benefits, but who would defend us? I am sure that the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Monslow) does not mean that in its extreme. There is a nice balance, but that is lot the problem. The problem is whether we are trying to spend more than we are earning. The truth of this cannot be avoided by any party which holds power.
To begin, I shall tackle the question of wages and salaries, and will give some facts to support my case. I think that it is admitted that, if wages and salaries rise faster than productivity, what those wages and salaries produce must cost more. Surely we all agree on that. I agree with hon. Members opposite that there can be no control of inflation without an incomes policy. There can be no incomes policy without control of wages and salaries, but, equally, there can be no control of wages and salaries unless all other incomes are controlled in the same way. I have said this at Conservative Party conferences, in the House, and in the Press, time and time again.
I shall give hon. Members a few figures about wages and salaries in this country. In 1946, they amounted to £4,940 million. In 1962, wages and salaries had gone up to £15,420 million. These are official figures. They are more than three times what they were in 1946. That was the first normal year after the war. Physical productivity may be up by roughly 50 per cent. Therefore, the inflationary forces engendered by this trebling in wages and salaries represents 100 per cent. The value of the £ has fallen from 20s. in 1946 to 10s. 3d. today. The correlation between the amount paid out in wages and salaries between 1946 and 1962 is exactly the same as the depreciation in the value of the internal purchasing power of the £.
Hon members may like to bear the following figures in mind. The average earnings per week in 1946 compared with those in October, 1963, were as follows: men 120s. 9d., today, 334s. 11d. These are Ministry of Labour official figures. For boys, they went up from 46s. 6d. to 148s. 6d. For women, they went up from 65s. 3d. to 168s. 3d. For girls, they


went up from 38s. 8d. to 109s. 2d. If we continue to pay ourselves more and more for doing the same work, obviously inflation must result and the cost of living must go up.

Mr. Denis Howell: Does the hon. Member say that that is too much?

Sir C. Osborne: Please allow me to make my speech; I am trying to be fair and factual.
The Leader of the Opposition—I gave him notice that I would refer to him—has already threatened that if his party is returned to power, and he becomes Prime Minister, he will restrict profits, dividends, rents and other personal incomes and also impose additional savage taxes.

Mr. A. Lewis: Did he say "savage"?

Sir C. Osborne: I am saying that.

Mr. Lewis: The hon. Member said that my right hon. Friend said it.

Sir C. Osborne: Please allow me to make my speech. The right hon. Gentleman will impose extra taxes. [An HON. MEMBER: "Did he say 'savage'?"] Please allow me to speak. If I am paying those taxes, then, whatever they are I shall think them savage. It depends on which side of the fence one is, whether one is the person imposing the taxes or the person paying them.
I ask the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling), for whose fairness of mind I have great respect, to ask his Leader to give an election pledge that if the Labour Party, unhappily, from my point of view, is returned at the next election—which seems to be becoming less and less likely—he will give an undertaking to impose restraint on wages and salaries similar to that which he proposes to impose on all other forms of income?
This is very important. Social justice demands it. In the White Paper of 1961 on the economy it was stated that of our total average industrial costs, 62 per cent. arose directly and indirectly from labour costs. In the cost of living through the shops, therefore, the labour costs are the most important factor.
It seems to me that to pretend that we can impose a ban on other forms of

income and yet leave wages and salaries to rise would not work and would be monstrously unjust. In considering the proportion of the national income which is taken in salaries and wages, two interesting facts arise. Wages and salaries took 56 per cent. of the total personal incomes for the nation in 1946, and last year they took 65 per cent. Thus, wages and salaries are taking a bigger proportion of a bigger cake. That is why I say that the crux of the matter, if we are to control inflation, must lie with wages and salaries, for if we control the other factors, and leave wages and salaries alone, we shall never find an answer to the problem.
On Monday night, the Leader of the Opposition was on "Panorama" and was questioned by Mr. Robin Day.

Mr. A. Lewis: My right hon. Friend was very good.

Sir C. Osborne: The Leader of the Opposition claimed, I think justly, that all the trade unions had wholeheartedly—this was his word—endorsed the incomes policy at the Labour Party conference. That is good as far as it goes, but I put it to hon. Members who know the trade union movement that it does not go far enough. In fact, it goes nowhere, because the T.U.C. is like the Labour Party, if I may say so without offence; it is filled with well-meaning, public-spirited, elderly gentlemen who politically are fat and flabby, who are virtuous, innocent, but impotent.

Mr. Marsh: Would the hon. Member describe the secretary of the T.U.C., who has an Oxford first, in those words?

Sir C. Osborne: The T.U.C. has no power whatever to bind the constituent unions and it cannot compel them to honour any obligations which it enters into with N.E.D.C., the Government, or the employers on the control of wages upon which is based our effort to control inflation.
The T.U.C.—I say this without offence—is the great eunuch of British politics. It can do nothing, absolutely nothing. The real power lies with the separate unions, and any trade unionist knows this to be true. But it does not lie even with the nominal leaders of the unions. To a large extent, unhappily, it lies with the shop stewards' movement, over


which even the leaders of the separate unions have no control, and over which the Labour Party has no control, either.
I am stating the case. I am not blaming anyone. I am asking my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough—if he will allow me to call him so—to ask his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition this question: when it comes to the election pledges, will the Labour Party, in its manifesto, say that it will control all forms of income in order to keep prices down? And will he get the great leaders of the trade unions, such as Frank Cousins, "Ted" Hill and Sir William Carron, to support him openly in a statement that they agree with it?

Mr. Marsh: They voted for it last October.

Mr. Joseph Slater: The hon. Member is asking my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) to put some questions to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition on behalf of hon. Members opposite. Will he do the same for my hon. Friends, by asking the Prime Minister when he will answer the questions which the Leader of the Opposition has already put to him?

Sir C. Osborne: I have been a backbench Member for nearly 20 years, and I do not pretend to have the influence with my right hon. Friend which the hon. Member for Hillsborough has with the Leader of the Opposition. But I think that it is on record that in the 20 years I have been in the House I have never failed to push this point of view hard—both in the House and outside.
On Monday, The Times had an extraordinary article which I am sure hon. Members opposite read. It is headed:
Trump Card Labour Cannot Play".
It supports the contention which I wish to put forward—unless I am told that I am out of order. It is that the only way to control inflation is to control wages. That is the point which I am making. This article, which I commend to hon. Members opposite, said:
Mr. Wilson and his colleagues would then play their trump card—the firm commitment"—

for which I have been asking—
of the trade union movement to support a Labour Government in a policy of incomes restraint, coffering wages and salaries as well as profits and rents, so that treasure may be laid aside for buying seed corn today in expectation of a richer harvest for everybody tomorrow".
That is sound common sense, which I wish both parties would support. I ask hon. Members opposite, as The Times asked them, why cannot they play that card?

Mr. Marsh: We have.

Sir C. Osborne: I will prove that the Labour Party has not. Hon. Members opposite claim that they are closely associated with the unions—and I do not deny that. One of the things which they have to do is to teach the unions that they have no divine right to a wage increase every year. A demand for one is being put in practically every year, irrespective——

Mr. Marsh: Why not?

Sir C. Osborne: Because it puts up the cost of living. The Leader of the Labour Party, at his party's conference in October, 1953, with great courage warned his followers of two things,—that automation would kill 10 million jobs and that it would be necessary for us to create 10 million jobs in the next decade; and that there was no room for Luddites in the Labour Party. How much notice did the unions take of that talk? None at all. It did not influence the unions a tiny bit.
Let me give two examples. Only a few weeks ago the great printing house which prints the two Labour newspapers, the Daily Mirror and the Daily Herald, was trying to bring in the first steps of automation to bring the printing works up to date. What happened? The unions decided to go slow. What was the result? The Daily Mirror was short of 1 million copies a days and the Daily Herald was short of 50,000 copies. This happened because the unions, over which the Labour Party has no control, disregarded the advice of the Leader of the Opposition. They applied the Luddite system at its worse and fiercest, despite the right hon. Gentleman's advice.

Mr. George Darling: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that he is referring to a


special case, involving part-time employees. I strongly object to the part-time employment system on full-time contracts in the printing industry. Is he aware that the workers objected to the arrangement made by their union leaders? Is he arguing that over the whole range of industry unions are opposing the introduction of new methods, because if he is, that is untrue? How, if we have made progress with automation in industry, has progress been made if the trade unions have not given their full co-operation in these matters?

Sir C. Osborne: I was giving an example.

Mr. Darling: An exception.

Sir C. Osborne: I will give another example.

Mr. Darling: Another exception?

Sir C. Osborne: In which case I will leave that one and give a third example.

Mr. Denis Howell: All right, give us a third one.

Sir C. Osborne: At this very moment a strike is going on in my home town because the Raleigh Cycle Company has introduced methods to improve the means of production which will help to reduce our cost of living. By increasing our exports and reducing the prices of the goods we produce we will succeed in increasing our standard of living.
Yesterday this item appeared in the Daily Express:
Angry wives are appealing to the Queen to help them break a nine-week-old strike.
The Daily Express reported one of the women to have said:
May I please appeal to you as a wife and mother to intervene in the Raleigh works strike … It is causing much hardship to many families and children. I am making this desperate appeal on behalf of wives whose husbands are out of work through this strike.
The report added:
… the 2,000 laid off because of the strike by 450 Amalgamated Engineering Union members over the redundancy of 25 men …
The Leader of the Opposition made his appeal at the Labour Party's conference. The trade union leaders came to the rostrum and agreed with him, but what can right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite do about the sort of events I am describing? It is obvious—

[Interruption.] It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to make a noise, but what protest has the Leader of the Opposition made about this folly? He has kept silent. Not a word has he uttered and we see that the party opposite is utterly impotent in this matter; it is a eunuch.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Sir C. Osborne: Hon. Members opposite must accept this.

Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman is saying that because of redundancy that was to be caused by new methods of production the men came out on unofficial strike when they should not have done that. I agree with him, but he should agree with me that there is another side to the coin. Is he suggesting that when a management wants to introduce new methods there should be no proper discussion with the workers and trade unions concerned? The complaint at the Raleigh works concerns Tube Investments, which has been responsible for this, because there were no proper negotiations. Whether or not the men were right I do not know, but until the position is made absolutely clear the hon. Gentleman should not make these charges.

Sir C. Osborne: I will clear the matter up straight away. This is what the Daily Express said on this point——

Mr. Denis Howell: Make your own speech.

Sir C. Osborne: The Daily Express stated:
It is obvious to everyone that the company cannot make any concessions to the A.E.U. without breaking faith with other unions which have accepted redundancy.
This shows that the matter was discussed with the other unions.

Mr. Darling: Mr. Darling indicated dissent.

Sir C. Osborne: It is no good the hon. Gentleman shaking his silly head at me. I am explaining why the cost of living continues to rise. Hon. Gentlemen opposite keep on kidding themselves that they have control of the unions when they have no influence over them at all.

Mr. Darling: That is silly.

Sir C. Osborne: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman thinks it is silly, but he must face the facts.
In the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, at Liverpool, as reported in The Times, he dealt with the question of rising costs and the growth in the cost of living. Having done that, he said that a Labour Government would demand the removal of the Health Service prescription charges and would provide free bus rides for old-age pensioners. If these things are to be done, the cost of living must go up because someone must pay for them. To my mind, that sort of statement is the cheapest form of political bribery, bribery which hon. Gentlemen opposite accuse my right hon. and hon. Friends of indulging in.

Mr. Denis Howell: The hon. Member should be ashamed of himself.

Sir C. Osborne: I have no reason to be ashamed. I am speaking the truth. If hon. Members opposite do not like to hear the truth, that is not my business. The Leader of the Opposition said that he wanted prescription charges removed. That is bound to put up taxes which, ultimately, will increase the cost of living.
I vividly recall what happened in 1951, when prescription charges were being discussed and when right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite fought against them tooth and nail. Three members of the then Labour Cabinet stormed out of the Cabinet over this very subject. This is what the Daily Herald said about the present Leader of the Opposition and his actions at that time:
Mr. Harold Wilson yesterday explained to the House of Commons why he has resigned from the Cabinet.
The Daily Herald's carefully considered opinion of the gentleman about whom it was writing—the right hon. Gentleman who hopes to be the next Prime Minister—was this, and I hope that the electorate will bear these words in mind:
The curious thing about Mr. Wilson's attitude is its lack of perspective".
What a recommendation for a fellow who wants to be Prime Minister [Interruption.]

Mr. Denis Howell: Is that the best the hon. Gentleman can do?

Sir C. Osborne: That is not what I am saying, but what was said in a Daily Herald editorial. That newspaper added:
If the security of Britain is priority number one, how can a responsible man shrug his shoulders at the prospect of insecurity and choose free false teeth as a consolation prize"?
Today, it is not false teeth the right hon. Gentleman is choosing, but free prescriptions. In those days the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the late Hugh Gaitskell.

Mr. J. J. Mendelson: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that to be in favour of free travel passes for old-age pensioners is political bribery, will he ask some of his hon. Friends, including the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Sir P. Roberts), if they are opposed to the giving of free passes in Sheffield and other parts of the country?

Sir C. Osborne: I am dealing with the Opposition and not my hon. Friends. Apparently hon. Members opposite cannot take it.
The last serious attempt made to control profits, wages and prices was made by Sir Stafford Cripps in 1947–48 and for two years his efforts were partially successful. Dividends, profits and wages were kept level for two years after an appeal made at that time by Sir Stafford. I would remind hon. Members opposite what Sir Stafford said on this issue in the House
Any worker by hand or brain who goes slow, or is an absentee, or demands more money for no more output, is, in fact, doing his best to put up his own household bills and to put somebody—quite possibly himself—out of a job.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th September, 1949; Vol. 468, c. 31–2.]
Will the hon. Gentleman say that to his people now? Has he the courage to say what Cripps said? I will give way to him, if he wishes—

Mrs. Slater: Get on with it!

Mr. Osborne: Sir Stafford Cripps spoke the truth fearlessly as he saw it, and it nay be that he was expelled from the Labour Party for doing so—[Interruption.] What Cripps said then is still as true today, and I ask hon. Members opposite to face the realities of the position as he did. If we go slow—on either side of industry—if we demand more than we earn, we put up


our own bills and put ourselves out of a job. Hugh Gaitskell supported the Cripps line. Are the present leaders of the Opposition also prepared to do that?

6.41 p.m.

Miss Margaret Herbison: I do not know whether it is worth while taking up the points made by the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne). [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] In all my time in this House I have never listened to so much humbug. Whatever the hon. Gentleman examined, he looked only at one side of the coin and never turned to the other side to try to get a true picture.
He told us that it is an "inflating world"—those were his words—and he seems to think that any Government would be quite helpless in the face of that kind of inflation. I can only say to him that during the 12 years his Government have been in power, just a few months before an election we get an expansion that leads us bang up against inflation, then the brakes go on immediately after the election, and great hardship follows.
The hon. Gentleman, who is so good at reading the Daily Express and the Daily Herald, might look at some of the literature that has come from Transport House, from which he will learn that the only way we will ever have a chance of coping with inflation—and we on this side know that it is not an easy matter—is by a determination to plan our economy and our industry. The present Government have been paying some lip-service in the last year to planning, but it has been only lip-service. Now, after a short-term boost, we get the Bank Rate raised one week and threats in the following week from the Chancellor of the Exchequer of higher taxation in his Budget.
The hon. Member for Louth spoke at length on the effect of rises in wages and salaries, but said not a word about the effect of rises in rents, profits and all those things that play such an important part in the inflationary aspect of the economy. He seemed to have come to the conclusion that there was no doubt that his party would lose the election. He decided that there was no point in directing questions to his own Front Bench, so he directed them all to

ours. It is very evident that he has already decided which party will win.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that we must not talk just about the cost of living but also about the standard of living. The present Government would be worse even than I think they are if, almost 20 years after the Second World War, there had not been some betterment in the standard of living. Nevertheless, when we compare our standard of living with that of the workers in almost every Western European country we find that, in the main, we are falling behind.
Again, I thought it very strange that the hon. Member for Louth should seek to make it appear that he was whole-heartedly in support of Sir Stafford Cripps. When I was on the benches opposite, I can well remember the kind of life the Tory Opposition gave Sir Stafford Cripps. That was when we were trying to do what the hon. Gentleman tells us we should do next time—make sure we have the seed corn. There was no support from the Opposition of the day—"Austerity Cripps" was the name they gave Sir Stafford. We were "Tired Tims and Weary Willies". That was the sort of support we got from the Opposition, but our Ministers showed far more courage than we have found in Conservative Ministers in the last 12 years——

Sir C. Osborne: But will the hon. Lady not agree that on more than one occasion at that time I defended Sir Stafford Cripps in the House against hon. Members of his own party? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I put that on record.

Miss Herbison: That may be so—I do not know. I only know that we did not get the hon. Member's support in the Divisions, which is sometimes the most important manifestation of real support for any policy.
I hope that the propaganda Minister, who is now on the Front Bench, will convey to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer——

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alan Green): I am not the propaganda Minister.

Miss Herbison: Then I hope that the hon. Gentleman will convey to the propaganda Minister—who will, I hope,


in turn convey it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that neither the Government nor the Chancellor have any right to expect our trade unions in any way to participate in the N.I.C. at present. We had a diatribe from the hon. Member for Louth, and an offensive description of trade union leaders who all along since the war have shown a far greater responsibility than have the big leaders of industry. How the hon. Member expects co-operation after his offensive language and description, I just do not know.
As long as the Chancellor and the Government spokesmen insist on a curtailment of wage increases and, at the same time, do nothing at all to curtail profits, there is very little chance of their getting co-operation from the trade union movement.
As long as 2 per cent. of the population still own over half the wealth of the country it is difficult to obtain co-operation. As long as the workers see others making £1 million overnight by a take-over bid, not a penny of which goes to the Exchequer, so long it will be difficult to get the co-operation which we must have if we are to survive and our standard of living is to be raised. The Chancellor said rather pathetically that the attitude of the T.U.C. towards the National Incomes Commission was not very helpful, but only when it is clearly seen that there is an attempt to secure social justice can we expect the co-operation which is so vital to our wellbeing.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that in his excellent speech my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) had not given figures of comparative costs in other countries. My hon. Friend dealt today with those matters which are vital to our economy, but he quoted what has been happening during the last twelve months and I ask the Government spokesman who is to wind up the debate to tell me of a single country in the whole of Europe which kept down the cost of living as it was kept down in this country from 1945 to 1951.
As for the people who are hit by the cost of living, I want to speak mainly of the retired. The only comparison that the hon. Member for Louth could make between those who retired in this

country and others was with 270 million people in India. It seems that the hon. Member expects us to depress further the lives of our own old people to help the millions of starving people in India. There are other means of obtaining that help, not from the depressed one-tenth of our people but from those who even today are living in the lap of luxury. However, even if we took that help from them it would make little difference to India. If we want to help African and Asian countries we shall be able to do so only if we have a sound economy and a rapid expansion of our industries.
On my way each day to the Palace of Westminster I see a huge poster which shows a kindly looking old man with a child in his arms. He is saying to the child, "Ssh! don't let Labour know that the Conservatives in 12 years have doubled the pension." In 1950 we on this side of the Committee could have put up a similar poster with a kindly old man and a nice looking child. The old man could have been saying "Ssh! don't let the Conservatives know that Labour has almost trebled the pension in five years." But what good will that do?
I ask myself whether the present pension of £3 7s. 6d. is adequate for an old person to live on and whether the present basic pension of £5 9s. is adequate for an old couple. Every decent person on either side of the Committee must give an emphatic "No" to that question. All this humbug about our old people never having had it better is nonsense. The answer is that well over 1 million old people are in receipt of National Assistance. They are people who, like the hon. Member for Louth, have worked hard all their lives and by their labour have contributed to the well-being of the country. Why on retirement should they go to the National Assistance Board for help, no matter how kindly the Board's staff may be? There are also a quarter of a million old people who just will not go to the Board. There are some of these people in my constituency.
The hon. Member for Louth talked about political bribery. He described as political bribery our wish to get rid of prescription charges. Does the hon. Member know that for years the B.M.A. has been saying to his own Government


that that is one charge at least which should be abolished? The doctors have asked for that not because of the cost to the old and the sick; but because they feel that the charge interferes with their treatment of the sick, and that is a very bad thing in what is supposed to be a civilised country.
We should think of the great hardship suffered by the chronic sick and those who are living just above National Assistance level when they have to pay for these prescriptions. I do not regard it as political bribery but as justice to give to the chronic sick and the old the medicines they need, without additional cost, at the time of retirement or sickness.
There is another group in our community whose standard of living deserves our consideration. These are the young married people. Thousands of them, with and without children, have no home of their own. What kind of standard of living is it for a young couple with children to be cooped up in a little room in someone else's house? Despite all that the Government have said about housing, thousands of our young people live in these conditions.
There is also the situation of those young people who make a great effort to buy their own homes. There are a great many of them in my constituency—good, responsible young couples who have a heavy mortgage to pay. They are paying a much heavier mortgage than they should be paying because of the high interest rate imposed upon them as a result of Government policy. They have to budget almost to the last farthing and if anything untoward happens in the home they have "had it". No Government should have placed such burdens on the shoulders of these good responsible young people.
Not only have they to pay high interest rates but the local authority rates which they have to pay are far too high, just as they are for those who live in council houses. Again, these are high because of the Government's specific policy of high interest rates which compels local authorities to pay far too much for the money which they borrow for housing, for building schools, and for the capital investments which they are in duty bound by the Government to carry out.

True, these young people have homes, and from that point of view they are better off than those young couples who are living in rooms, but very often the amount that they have to pay for their homes depresses every other aspect of their standard of living.
I want to turn to another point that was mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said that we were undergoing a vigorous rate of expansion, and he attributed much of this to the fiscal measures which he introduced last year. He said that these measures had led to greater efficiency and production. The party opposite is 11 years too late. For years those hon. Members on our Front Bench responsible for economic and industrial matters have been trying to get successive Chancellors in the party opposite to do the very thing which the Chancellor last year suddenly decided to do. Therefore, he can take very little credit for the spurt that we are getting at the moment.
Even this vigorous expansion is patchy. In Scotland, where I come from, we have seen no signs of this vigorous expansion. We still have over 96,000 men and women unemployed. Last night the Prime Minister made a speech in Coventry and it seems to be backed up very much by the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper).

Mr. Cooper: I have not said a word yet.

Miss Herbison: That is the trouble. I was just about to say that he has been reclining on the Front Bench opposite, muttering away about nationalisation and all its evils.
The hon. Member seemed to be very much in agreement with the part of the Prime Minister's speech dealing with nationalisation. How wrong it is of hon. Members opposite to take every possible chance to denigrate the nationalised industries. Those industries are being run by public-spirited men. Those people—Lord Robens and all the rest of them—have done what I can only describe as a wonderful job for this country.
Again, I say to the hon. Member for Ilford, South that if the nationalised industries are so bad for this country, a great deal of the blame can be attached to the present Government. If


they really believed that nationalisation was bad for the country, they ought to have denationalised those industries years ago. But, of course, they have not, and there is nothing in their policy which suggests that they are going to denationalise them. The Prime Minister, who represents a Scottish seat, seems to know little about the economy of Scotland.

Mr. Denis Howell: Or anywhere else.

Miss Herbison: If he were to go anywhere in Scotland and try scaremongering about nationalisation, he would not have a very warm welcome. In Scotland almost everything that is bright in our economy today is either publicly owned or has been greatly financed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Heaven help our country if we had not got these publicly-owned industries and industries like the steel strip mills which have had so much public finance put into them.
I give this warning to the Prime Minister to save him, because sometimes I feel that he is so pathetic and I would not like him to go to Scotland and make the kind of error that he has made so often. I say to him, "Keep off public ownership when trying to get votes in Scotland." It seems to me that the present Government have decided that Scotland is expendable. I think they now realise that in Scotland we have a majority of Labour Members and that it is too late in the day to try to reduce that number. Indeed, I believe they know that the number will be increased.
I am not only concerned with the number of unemployed in Scotland. It is a fact that wherever there is a large number of unemployed the standard of living of those who are employed is depressed. This can be seen quite clearly by comparing wage rates in Scotland or in the north of England with wage rates, for example, in the Midlands or in the South.
This brings me to another point. When our unemployed seek National Assistance they get less from the National Assistance Board than the unemployed get in the Midlands or in the south of England. They come up against the wage stop, because our wages are lower in Scotland. When a man is unemployed, as he so often is under this Government, he suffers yet again. Many

people in Scotland have not had a penny of the last two increases in National Assistance—and National Assistance is supposed to provide what the Government regard as a subsistence level. As a result of our heavy unemployment depressing the standard of living, there are many families in Scotland who are living on less than what this miserable Government considers to be a subsistence level.
The hon. Member for Louth seemed to suggest that every trade unionist was working against automation. As an hon. Friend of mine said, the hon. Member for Louth was only able to mention exceptions. They were trifling exceptions compared with the wonderful step forward in automation that has been taken in some areas. Let me refer to the industry which I know best, where my roots are—the mining industry. We have more automation and more up-to-date machines than can be found in any mining industry anywhere else in the world, including the United States of America. That is a nationalised industry.

Mr. Proudfoot: Mr. Proudfoot rose——

Miss Herbison: I cannot give way now. One can give other examples to show that automation has been accepted and will continue to be accepted.
Even if the present Government are in office until the very last moment, I am glad to feel that it is not very long before they will go. I know that the retired people, be they basic pensioners or retired on a small fixed income, and the young will be very glad to see the end of this Government——

Sir C. Osborne: Hon. Members opposite said that in 1959.

Miss Harbison: —and the return of a Labour Government who will carry out the rapid expansion that we desperately need to raise the standard of living which the people have a right to expect.

7.10 p.m.

Sir Peter Roberts: Although the hon. Lady the Member for Lanark shire, North (Miss Herbison) was most sincere in what she said, I do not believe that any of the remedies which she put to the Committee


would, in fact, bring prices down. All of them, in one way or another, would put prices up. I wish to come back to the gravamen of the charge which the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) made in his opening speech. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his speech. I have heard him make a good many, and I am always impressed by the way he manages to put up such a good performance, making bricks without straw. He did it once again today, and he delivered a most amusing speech.
Analysing the hon. Gentleman's speech, one finds that his arguments were of two kinds, the political and the economic. I shall take the political arguments first. It is easy in Opposition—we did it on our side—when one is coming towards an election, to play on the plight of the less fortunate members of the community. This is a political move in which we have all indulged. The answer which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave, that the real value of social benefits has, in fact, increased, is conclusive. I shall not go into the percentages, but I think that we all agree that the value has increased.
On both sides of the Committee, we want to do more for the less fortunate, and I hope that hon. and right hon. Members opposite will accept our sincerity if we accept theirs. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the Conservative record in this matter is better than the Labour record. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is better. On this part of the political argument, hon. Members opposite must put up a better performance in the debate if they want to justify their Amendment to reduce the salary of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East and other hon. Members opposite tried to attach considerable blame to the Government for rising prices. What the hon. Gentleman overlooked was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne), who, I see, is leaving us for a moment. [Laughter.] I do not want to stop my hon. Friend leaving the Chamber. That would be the last thought in my mind. It was just that he made the point so well that I did not wish to elaborate it. If we are to pay an increased price for raw

materials and if, as we all want, the under-developed countries are to get the benefit from the rising price of raw materials, we must accept that there will be an effect on prices here. The point my hon. Friend emphasised is that it is no good trying to blame the Government for that part of the increased cost which we have to bear because of increased overseas prices.
Next in his political argument, the hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that the standard of living had not been improving in real terms. I hope that I am not misquoting him. I had the impression that he and others on the Opposition benches suggested that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction with the general rise in the standard of living. On this point also I was much impressed by the speech of my tight hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the figures which he gave which showed that under this Government the standard of living of our people has, in fact, increased. So far, we have heard no argument from the benches opposite—I think that we ought to hear about it—as to what the Opposition would do, if by some extraordinary chance they came to power, to improve the standard of living to a greater extent than we have. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, we have kept to the target of doubling our standard of living in 25 years. Do the Opposition claim that they will do better? If they do, how would they do it?
The hon. Gentleman's next political point related to land prices and rents. This must be answered from this side of the Committee. In the economic conditions of today, when we have allowed demand and supply to play a part, these prices have, in my view, gone too high. I think that they will come down, but I consider, nevertheless, that they are too high at the moment. Why is this so? The first reason, which hon. Members opposite must appreciate, is that in the past, for one reason or another, we kept the price of land and the level of rents artificially low. When this is done and the restriction is later released, one is bound to get a distortion in the economy.
The Opposition must realise that, if they take the opportunity to recontrol prices, this will only mean that, at some future date, when the particular artificial


restrictions come off, there will be another distortion. I am certain that permanent control on an uneconomic basis in that way must in the long run lead to distortion. We are, to some extent, suffering from the release of the restrictions which were placed on land prices and rents over the 13 or 14 years prior to derestriction.
The other factor in this connection is the scarcity of land for building purposes in and around our cities and towns. There is a great scarcity of building land in and around Sheffield, part of which I have the honour to represent. But one must remember that the Government and the Labour Party agreed in imposing the planning restrictions upon development; and both parties must take responsibility for the fact that there are areas of land which could be used for building but which are not being so used. I have had cause to complain recently in Sheffield that some of the white land, as it is called, which was designated way back in 1938, is still being used not as building land even though it is up against the moors and hillsides of Sheffield. Both parties must take some blame for the stultifying effect of sterilising land which we need for building purposes, for open spaces and the rest.
I turn now to the economic side of the matter. I wish particularly to take up what the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East and same of his hon. Friends have said about the engineering industry. I have a personal interest here because I am vitally concerned in the management of engineering enterprise in various parts of the country. The fact that I have this personal interest does not, I think, detract from the help and advice which I may be able to give to the Committee in this respect.
The unrealistic charge which we have heard from the Opposition today, which has been taken from some paper with which I am not really conversant, is based on the claim that the engineering industry is out to get maximum prices. Wherever this idea came from, I do not know. I gather it is said that the object of the engineering industry is to maximise prices. This is quite untrue. I hope that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling), if he is to

reply to the debate, will take this point up.
In engineering, it is the customer who decides the price.

Mr. Cyril Bence: Nonsense.

Sir P. Roberts: It is the customer who decides the price. Let the hon. Gentleman try to sell some engineering product and then he will find out. In many cases, of course, the customer is overseas and he has the whole range of world engineering production to draw from.

Mr. Bence: I have been in the engineering industry pretty well all my life and I have sufficient experience of business to know that one gets the best price one can for one's product out of the market. That is the job of the salesman and of the whole unit, to maximise the price out of the market.

Sir P. Roberts: I think that we both agree—it is out of the market, out of the customer.

Mr. Bence: He is the market.

Sir P. Roberts: That is what I am saying. The suggestion I heard today was that management is concerned only to put up prices, and this is what I am trying to show is false.
I am thinking particularly of the heavy end of the engineering industry. Incidentally, the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North will know that in the Glasgow and Edinburgh area engineering firms were on short time until two or three months ago. The profitability of the engineering industry has been low. Men have been kept on in firms to maintain employment where, possibly, there have not been the orders to justify it. I could cite many instances when orders from overseas and home have yielded no profit, simply to keep employment and the overheads of the companies going.
Over the last two or three years, the industry has been faced with increasing insurance, rents, rates and raw material costs. Basically, however, there has not been an increase in prices. In the heavy engineering end of the business, of which I am particularly speaking, prices have, if anything, been kept stable or have decreased. At the time of the recent


wage award—I am not quarrelling with it—it was essential, unless there was to be massive unemployment, that this extra cost should be passed on, where it could be passed on, to the consumer. There is no cause for blame upon the industry or upon management in this respect.
It is wrong that certain hon. Members opposite should try to force a wedge between management and workpeople. My hon. Friend the Member for Louth tended to do this also. I deplore it. It is in the interests of management and of workpeople that they should work together and understand each other's problems. It is essential for good management to have high wages. Good management wants efficient work, high wages and productivity.
The trade union movement and leaders and responsible management have done a very good job during what has been a difficult time in the last two or three years. I do not associate myself with what my hon. Friend the Member for Louth said. We know that there have been difficulties. We know the difficulties of the unofficial strike and of outside influence. We appreciate the work which the T.U.C. and other trade union leaders are doing behind the scenes to combat their difficult position. I am certain that out of it, and provided there is good will and no attempt is made politically to drive the two sides apart, we shall be able to do what the Government want and increase our standard of living and maintain stable prices.
We have heard talk about nationalisation. The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North must realise our difficulty. If the Labour Party dropped its suggestion of nationalising steel, we would not have to attack nationalisation. When we do attack it, we tend to draw certain comparisons with the coal, gas and electricity industries. Economically, this is unfortunate, because I appreciate that the great work that they do is a basic part of our industrial endeavour. Nevertheless, when politics comes into the issue the hon. Lady must not complain if we on this side attack the idea of nationalisation.
I should like it to go on record in this debate that for the last three years, despite rising costs generally, steel prices basically have not risen. I hope that

they remain static, although the pressure of rising costs is making things difficult.
Therefore, the attack which we have heard upon the engineering industry by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East and others is wrong. It may be that they are confusing the lighter end of the engineering industry, the end which is nearest to the public. If they are drawing examples from the refrigeration or electrical sectors of the industry, I hope they will realise that there is a great difference compared with the heavy end of the industry, where competition is fierce and where the Americans, the Japanese, the French and the Germans cannot make us maximise our prices. We have to compete with world prices.
It was said by one hon. Member that Great Britain was the third greatest engineering country in 1946. Was he suggesting that any engineering country has surpassed us since then? Is there anybody in the party opposite who would denigrate British industry and say that the Germans or the French are better than we are? I am sorry that the hon. Member has left his place, because I wanted to question him about this. I hope that there is no suggestion in this Committee or elsewhere that we have lost our industrial position in the world. I agree that in magnitude we come below the United States of America and Russia. Beneath them, however, we are at the head both economically in quality and in industry above any other country.
It is said by the Opposition that the Government have not taken steps to control rising prices. Let us go back to 1961, when my right hon. and learned Friend who is now Leader of the House put upon the economy what has come to be called the pay pause. This was unpopular and was attacked both from the benches opposite and by people outside. Nevertheless, it was an example of the Government taking action which had the definite effect of keeping down prices.

Mr. A. Lewis: Who sacked the right hon. and learned Gentleman?

Sir P. Roberts: I do not like the expression "sacked". The hon. Member should not use it in this Committee.

Mr. Lewis: Well, who made him resign if he was doing such a good job?


I thought that "sacked" was a good expression. The hon. Member perhaps prefers me to say "dismissed" or "forced to resign", but it was done not by this side of the Committee, but by the hon. Member's own side.

Sir P. Roberts: Everybody knows that.
In 1961, action was taken by my right hon. and learned Friend which had a definite effect in controlling prices for nearly three years afterwards. This is something which has not been mentioned by any right hon. or hon. Member opposite, but it is a definite example of the bold action which the Government have taken. It may be that the pay pause was kept on too long—I am not arguing that—but it is an example of how the Government have taken action to keep prices down, and it is something which the country will remember. I hope that when we look back over the last years, the actions of the Government will be seen as being calculated best to increase our standard of living and to keep prices as low as possible. I hope that they will be given—and I am sure that they will—an opportunity to continue to do so.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Sir P. Roberts). One would think, listening to him, that 1961, when the present Leader of the House was Chancellor of the Exchequer, was the first time that the Tory Government appreciated that the cost of living was going up.
The hon. Gentleman seems to forget that at every election from 1951 onwards—and before that—the Tory Party promised that it would reduce the cost of living, make the pound worth something, would not abolish subsidies and would not introduce rent decontrol. What happened? For 12 years not only have prices risen but they have gone up by the deliberate policy of the Government, now being continued by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer who, almost throughout the 12 years, has been in the Treasury.
It is true, as the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) said, that import prices have great effect upon our cost of living and the prices of our finished goods. But what he conveniently forgot to mention was that during these 12 years, with the exception of the last few

months, import prices have been dropping and that the terms of the balance of payments have been in favour of the Government. The hon. Gentleman referred to what happened in 1945–51 but forgot also to mention that during that period world prices went against us.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer also mentioned the rise in the cost of living in 1951. He, too, forgot to mention that import prices rose that year, in some instances as much as 700 or 800 per cent., because of stockpiling in the Korean War. I shudder to think what would have happened in this country if during the last 12 years import prices had risen by such amounts.
Looking back, one can see how every action of the Government in fiscal policy has deliberately been intended and has had the effect of increasing the cost of living and giving to those who have the most at the expense of those who have the least. One sees the picture emerging from the Budgets presented during those years.
The biggest reliefs in taxation have been given to Surtax payers. It is true that some of the lower income groups had budgetary relief before the 1955 Election but immediately afterwards the present Foreign Secretary, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, increased Purchase Tax. It is now higher than it has ever been—65 per cent. above what it was in 1951. The Government have also increased the National Insurance contributions, which also makes the lower income groups worse off.

Captain W. Elliot: Is the hon. Gentleman able to give the actual Purchase Tax figures for 1951 and for today?

Mr. Lewis: My information is based on a Question I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the hon. and gallant Gentleman will find the answer in HANSARD of 19th February. Taking 1951 as the base line of 100, we find that there has been a 65 per cent. increase, according to the latest figures available, those for 1963.

Captain Elliot: Is the hon. Gentleman speaking about total yield?

Mr. Lewis: No. The hon. and gallant Gentleman can see a number of illuminating figures here. Purchase Tax has risen from 100 to 165 between 1951 and


1963. [HON. MEMBERS: "The yield."] No. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes it is."] Very well, we will accept that this is the yield.

Captain Elliot: If the hon. Gentleman is arguing on the increase in the yield of the tax, he can apply the same argument to Income Tax and to any other sort of tax. The reason for the increase is that the national income has gone up so enormously under the Conservative Government.

Mr. Lewis: I have accepted the fact that this is the increased yield. But the fact remains that this came from increased prices and higher taxation and that, when the present Foreign Secretary was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he extended Purchase Tax to a number of goods—day-to-day commodities such as brooms, buckets and other household necessities. These are still subject to Purchase Tax. Certainly there is a bigger yield. That is because more things are being taxed. More of the housewives' necessities are being taxed today than they were in 1951.

Captain Elliot: No.

Mr. Lewis: The hon. and gallant Gentleman should ask his wife or, if she does not go out shopping, then the person who does for his household. Many taxes are in being which did not exist in 1951. He can find in HANSARD a list of taxes which have increased and of new taxes.

Captain Elliot: Captain Elliot rose——

Mr. Lewis: The hon. and gallant Gentleman can jump up as much as he likes, but I want to speak about just after the last General Election, when the present Leader of the House imposed the most pernicious of all taxes—the sweets tax on the poor children. We were told that it would last only for the period of the pay pause. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that it was purely temporary. Nevertheless, the Government are still taxing children's sweets and ice-cream, but, of course, are still giving reliefs to Surtax payers.
We hear appeals to the wage earners and the trade unionists not to go for wage increases. How do we deal with cases which every hon. Member repre-

senting an industrial seat, particularly in working-class areas, hears about every day, where people are having their rents increased by 10s., 15s. or £1 a week or more under creeping decontrol?
The hon. Member for Louth has now left the Chamber, but I would ask him what he would do in a case like the one I shall now cite. It is that of a young bus driver with two small children. The family lives in a house which was occupied by his parents and his grandparents over a period of 85 years. The house cost only about £100 when originally built. The family have regularly paid the rent. The successive generations have kept it in repair and have decorated it—all at their own expense and never asking the landlord to pay a penny. About five or six years ago the father died and the mother took the house over. A year ago she, too, died. Now the landlord says that the rent, which is now 25s. a week, will go up to £5 10s. a week and that if the bus driver cannot pay he must get out. What is he to do? He can get out, but to what? The council house list?
While hon. Members opposite have been in power, their deliberate fiscal policy has resulted in a 35 per cent. drop in the production of council houses compared with 1951. It is no good talking about a housing target of 400,000 or 300,000 a year when deliberate fiscal policy results in reducing the number of houses for those in most urgent need. I could give chapter and verse of the taxes and other legislative measures which have deliberately shoved up the cost of living.
Hon. Members opposite supported the Government in legislation which resulted in rate increases, but when there came a scream from some of the retired ladies in Bournemouth, Boscombe and Bath—and they were right to scream—at the doubling and trebling of their rates, the Government gave way to pressure from their own hon. Members and decided to give these areas amelioration of rates. But the not so fortunate areas, such as mine, where the same situation applied, did not get any amelioration, so that working-class families—for instance, the bus driver of my example—now find that their rents have risen from £1 5s. to £5 10s. a week, while their rates have doubled,


or risen by as much as two and a half times. Is that bus driver to say that he will not pay his rent and rates?
It has been argued by some that people in this position should buy their own house on mortgage from a building society. How can they do that? It has been said that the average wage is about £12 a week and that one-fifth of the working population gets that average. How can someone in that position get a house in London when we know that the cheapest house costs anything between £2,000 and £3,000 and when they have to find £200 or £300 in deposit, quite apart from legal costs and so on?
These families do not have two half-pennies for a penny, not enough money to furnish their homes, let alone find £200 or £300 for a deposit. But even if they can, if they borrow, as some do, from their parents or other sources, if they pinch and scrape to get the deposit, when they sign the contract and think that they will have to pay £1 or £2 or £3 a week, overnight the Chancellor puts up the Bank Rate and these people have the choice of paying an extra 4s. or 5s. a week, or of having the period of the mortgage extended by two, three or four years.
It is no good hon. Members opposite shedding crocodile tears and the Prime Minister talking about what he intends to do to reduce the cost of living—he said something about "Neddy, steady, go". He ought to look at the facts, and the facts are that Government actions have been responsible for the situation. All he has to do is to reverse Government policy over the past few years. I suggest one immediate action which he could take and which would reduce the cost of living tomorrow—reintroduce rent control and bring in legislation to stop creeping decontrol.
When the people come to decide these issues—as they will in May or June or October—they will do so not on the pledges and promises of the Prime Minister and the Tory Party, but on the fact that right hon. Gentlemen opposite have had 12 years of power. The people will ask, "Why did you not do these things during the last 12 years? If you are now telling us that you can do this, that and the other, why have

you not done it already? If you are saying that you will reduce the cost of living, why did you not do so over the last 12 years?".
I agree that the main issue on which the electorate will decide the election is the cost of living, and on that the country will say that the sooner we have a Labour Government at Westminster, the better it will be for the people.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. A. E. Cooper: We have just listened to a fair old lot of rubbish during the last 10 or 15 minutes. It may sound very well on a street corner on the eve of poll at the General Election, but it does not bear analysis on the Floor of the House of Commons. I recommend the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis) to journey to Oxford at weekends with his hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) so that he can polish up on his sums, when he will find that life is not as he imagines it to be.
Only one point in the hon. Gentleman's speech needs to be bothered about. This is his reference to the concession to Surtax payers. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has been complaining over the last few weeks that we are not paying sufficient money to scientists and professors and the like, so that they are going to America and other countries. These are the very men who have benefited from the Surtax concessions given by a Conservative Government. That should not be forgotten. All of them in receipt of more than £2,000 a year—and that covers all the professors and scientists who have left this country in the last few years—have benefited. Will the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend say that it was wrong to encourage these scientists? The hon. Gentleman cannot ride two horses at the same time.

Mr. Charles Curran: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the Surtax cut also helped us to get back into teaching married woman whose husbands had incomes near the Surtax level and who had been restrained from returning to teaching because their joint income would have been above the Surtax scale?

Mr. Cooper: That is a fact which is not generally recognised. The combined incomes of men and women school teachers at present salaries took them above the Surtax level and they benefited directly as a result of those concessions. Let us rid our minds of this prejudice of class and class. The hon. Member himself does not do too badly in industry and has benefited considerably from these concessions.

Mr. A. Lewis: On a point of order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to make a statement concerning another hon. Member's private activities when he does not know whether it is true? As a matter of fact, it is not true, so I ask him to withdraw. It is not true in any way, shape or form.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Robert Grimston): That is not a point of order.

Mr. Cooper: The most interesting speech from the Opposition tonight——

Mr. Lewis: The hon. Member should withdraw a definite lie. He has told a definite lie about me. He has made a statement against me personally which is quite untrue. He said that I have done well in my business. The facts are—

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. We cannot have the word "lie" bandied about in the Committee. The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis) is perfectly entitled to ask the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) to withdraw if he wishes, but if the hon. Member for Ilford, South does not withdraw, then that is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Lewis: I apologise, Sir Robert, and withdraw the word "lie". It is a terminological inexactitude for the hon. Member to say that I have made any money in business, or done anything on business, when it is not true. I therefore ask him, if he is an honourable man, to withdraw, because it is not true.

Mr. Cooper: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that he has failed in business over the last 12 years, I am sorry for him, and I withdraw any previous imputations of success.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Whether my hon. Friend the Member

for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis) has failed or done well does not matter. The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) is making these charges. He should say whether he has done well or failed. We are equally entitled to hear that.

Mr. Cooper: I enjoy a good life.

Mr. Willis: The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) is never here.

Mr. Cooper: My Division record bears comparison with that of the hon. Gentleman. I must admit that I do not speak as often as he does, but, then, Scottish Members speak so much that English Members get very little opportunity to do so.
I am sorry that the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) is not in the Chamber. We all very much admire her, and she has been a good friend to many of us over the years, but there are certain things that I must point out. This is not merely a question of rapidly expanding our economy. That is not difficult to do. The Chancellor of the Exchequer always has at his disposal ways and means by which our economy can be expanded beyond any reasonable bounds, but which, in the end, although we may produce various things, could make us bankrupt.
The essential element is the ability to sell our goods overseas, and hon. Gentlemen opposite know that. I do not have to teach them their A.B.C. of economics. From time to time we are unable to export because, first, our prices are too high, and, secondly, because other countries are in financial difficulties themselves and cannot buy our goods. A classic case at the moment is India. She needs large quantities of goods from us and from other countries, but she just has not the necessary currency to buy those goods. It is, therefore, no use us producing all sorts of goods to cure unemployment in one area if we are never to be able to sell them to the countries to which we are supposed to sell them.
We must rid ourselves of the idea that all that we have to do in this country is to stoke up the economy and all will be well. Unless increased productivity is accompanied by this essential element


of being able to export a proper proportion of that increase in production, we can never succeed in keeping inflation at bay in this country. That is the A.B.C. and, indeed, the whole alphabet, of the economics of this country.
I deal next with interest rates, about which we have heard so much tonight. We have heard about the way in which the raising of interest rates by the Government affects young people wanting to buy a house, how it affects the costs of local authorities, and so on. That is true, but what does the Labour Party propose? Does it propose to have one set of interest rates for its international trade, and another set of rates to cover the internal domestic economy? If it does, it should say so. If hon. Gentlemen opposite propose to do that, they must tell us how they will find the difference between the lower and the higher rate of interest.
We do not have a high Bank Rate in this country simply because we like it that way. We have a relatively high rate because it has to bear some relationship not only to our own trading position, but also to the position of overseas countries. Our rates were out of line with those of other countries, and, in consequence, it was no longer profitable for money to be kept here and was drawn away. These things have to be kept in some sort of balance with the position in other countries.
I repeat my question: does the Labour Party propose to have a lower rate of interest charges to cover the internal position? If so, what is it to be? What will it cost, and how will the money be found? It is no use dangling this lovely carrot of lower interest charges before local authorities and young people. They must be told how it will be done and what it will cost. That is where the Labour Party has been dishonest and hypocritical over the past few months. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have thrown out all these fine aspirations, with never a word about the cost, or how the money will be found.
The hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North said that she would do away with Health Service prescription charges. That would cost £200 million. Where will that money come from? It will have to be found from somewhere, and

never once has the party opposite suggested how that will be paid for.
A lot of criticism has been levelled against the Conservative Government tonight, but I remind hon. Gentlemen who are now going to the country, or will do so during the next few months, with all sorts of fine plans and aspirations, that they were the Government for six years when we had the full paraphernalia of Socialist planning. We were offered all the things that we have been offered again now, and as a result of having a Labour Government we as a nation received a loan of £1,000 million from America, and £350 million a year by way of Marshall Aid. We do not receive anything now. We live on the industry of our country without any soup kitchen subventions from any other country, and hon. Gentlemen opposite should bear those solid facts in mind.
When hon. Gentlemen opposite talk, as they have done tonight, about controlling profits and dividends, I would remind them that about 50 per cent. of all the profits in industry come back to the Exchequer in the form of taxes and help to support the Welfare State. If profits were reduced exceptionally by a constitutional act, or by a legislative act, the amount of money received by the Exchequer would be reduced. How would the party opposite make up for that loss? What new taxes would they impose to make up for that loss of revenue?
We have had a lot of electioneering tonight, and I have been guilty of it myself, but we have to get down to fundamentals if we are to live through the next 10, 15 or 20 years without everything getting out of hand. For example, both sides of the Committee accept the need to increase the number of schools the number of teachers, the number of universities, training colleges, houses, hospitals and roads. All that will cost a great deal of money. So far, the money is being found by two methods—taxes and rates.
The problem with which we have to deal—and I confess that I am not able to give a ready answer to this—is how to spread the rate burden more equitably than it is spread at present, because the rate burden is one of the principal costs which the ordinary working man, as it


were, forces down the throat of his shop steward and ultimately brings about a demand for higher wages. The regular increase in rates is an extremely heavy burden for old-age pensioners and people living on small fixed incomes, and, if I may point this out to the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North, it is one reason why there has been an increase in the number of people receiving National Assistance. This rate burden, which is only a poll tax, was designed many years ago, in quite different social circumstances, when nothing like so much work was being done as is being done today, and we must get down to trying to revise the system.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, North referred to house rents. I have no doubt that a flat rent for a council house is wrong, and that the differential rent scheme which is being adopted by many councils, including some Labour ones, is the right and just way of charging for accommodation.
It is absolutely right that a man should pay a proper proportion of his income for his accommodation and that he should not expect to be subsidised by someone who is probably in a much worse financial position. This aggravates the cost of living for the people who have to pay the subsidies in some form or another. It is a very serious matter.
We have also talked about transport. It seems to me that in this debate we can talk about every conceivable thing under the sun, so long as we mention the cost of living every couple of minutes. We have been talking about nationalised industries, transport, and all the rest. I ask hon. Members opposite, who have such a great love for nationalisation: why do they suppose that we in industry spend hard-earned capital on buying lorries, and on drivers and maintenance plants to keep them going, if we have an efficient nationalised transport system?
We do not spend all this money, depending on the size of the organisation, in many cases thousands upon thousands of pounds, for nothing. We could much more happily use that money to buy plant and machinery and thus benefit the consumer. We have to do this because

the nationalised transport system is incompetent, and we cannot do anything about it.
We have been trying for 12 years to reorganise the nationalised transport system, and, slowly, some sense is being brought to it, but with no help from the Opposition. As soon as Dr. Beeching introduced his Report, where did the opposition come from? From the Labour Party, as all opposition does whenever the word "progress" is mentioned. I have never known a party so stuffed with Luddites as is Her Majesty's Opposition at this time.
I turn to profits and dividends. It would be a very clever man on the other side of the House who could tell any of us in industry at the beginning of a financial year what our profit margins would be at the end of the year. We should like to know. The fact is that we never do know. All sorts of circumstances arise during a working year which can throw out of balance our best calculations. That brings me back to this one point: even if it were possible, which it is not, so to determine our profits, the Exchequer would suffer because 50 per cent. of the profits of industry goes back to the Exchequer.
There is one thing about which I think something could be done. I do not know whether Parliament itself would be able to do this, or whether there should be a Royal Commission or a Select Committee to consider it. But there is no doubt that with the way in which our life has developed over the last few years, with the very heavy demands being made by ordinary people upon manufacturing industry and our farms, our distribution system is, to put it mildly, a little archaic. The idea of still bringing, as still happens, lots of goods from the West Country to London and sending them back and sending manufactured goods from London to Manchester and back again, is something which, in our day and age, we cannot tolerate. We must bring our distribution system more up-to-date. This, I am sure, would have a very salutary effect upon our costs.
The next very important thing is to ensure there must be no delay—and I am sure that Her Majesty's Government will not delay—in carrying through what is now commonly called the Kennedy


Round of tariff revisions. It is very important for British industry, and for the expanding world economy, that the Kennedy Round is brought into effect as quickly as possible. Let us not delude ourselves. When these are brought into effect, some industries will be hurt; but that is what we must expect if we are to live in this modern world and earn an honest and prosperous living.
What must happen? The only way in which these vast new expenditures, which we are all agreed upon—there is no difference of opinion between us—can be financed is by a real increase in productivity in this country, not just productivity for its own sake, but a real productivity, based on solid costs, sound achievement, good quality, and with a good export potential. Then we can have all the things that we need to produce what we want. There is a part for all sections of industry to play in this. An incomes policy is essential.
I am sorry, as I have no doubt hon. Members opposite are, that N.E.D.C. has so far failed to reach a satisfactory conclusion on this point. But it will have to reach a conclusion, whether under a Conservative or a Labour Government. The facts are that N.E.D.C. must reach a conclusion on an incomes policy, and this policy, when agreed, must have the full support of all the individual unions making up the T.U.C. This is important. Whenever we mention trade unions the hackles of hon. Members opposite rise and they think that we have really "got it in" for the unions. It is not so at all. The T.U.C., as hon. Members opposite know, has no control over constituent unions, and the unions have no control over individual members. There must be this control, because the T.U.C. members on N.E.D.C. cannot possibly agree to an incomes policy if the T.U.C. is not able to enforce it with its own members.

Mr. Darling: Would the hon. Gentleman say that the Federation of British Industries should have industrial control over all the firms in the country?

Mr. Cooper: That is not an easy one for the simple reason that membership of the F.B.I. is quite different from membership of a trade union.
In the first place, it is based on the capital of companies which are very

divergent, with extremely different profitability, and so forth, but if N.E.D.C., on which management is represented, came to a satisfactory conclusion which it could be seen would be accepted by the T.U.C. I have no reason to suppose that the management would not accept it, also. I am quite sure that that would be so.
The fact is that we have a sizeable job on our hands at present. An exploding population over the next 10 years will bring with it immense new problems which we have to face. Although it is enjoyable to stand here or in a public hall and have a bit of a knockabout and "pull each other's legs", the fact is that his is Parliament, where we are supposed to deliberate seriously the nation's problems and try to offer suggestions to Her Majesty's Government which, we hope, are considered in the fullness of time in the various Departments.
It does not do us any good to try to score party points over each other, although I do it myself. It does not do us any good here, and it certainly does not do us any good in the eyes of the country, to conduct ourselves in this way. The debate that we have had today on this very vital subject is about as serious a debate as we can have in this Parliament.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) has placed before the Committee one or two of the serious problems that we have to face. In the first minute or two he rightly said that above all else we must increase our export potentiality, and in the latter part of his speech he said that we must have an incomes policy. The two points are related. The middle part of his speech was a knockabout turn—to which he was entitled. As the Prime Minister said, our speeches and actions from now on must have an election bias—and the Prime Minister is leading the way in this regard.
I was interested in the hon. Member's further point, which is also true, that if we do not increase our export potentiality we shall never solve the problem of stabilising the cost of living. But I would remind him that this is not what his party said in its election manifesto


in 1959, to which he presumably subscribed. That document said:
We have now stabilised the cost of living, while maintaining full employment
This was the cry of his party in the 1959 election, but it has done neither. We have neither stability in the cost of living nor full employment. In fact, we have the worst of both worlds. I could quote facts and figures to substantiate that.
Why have we not achieved that objective? Neither party has achieved stability in the cost of living. It is very easy, but pretty pointless, to contrast the record of the Labour Government, in quite different circumstances, with that of the Tory Party. This gets us nowhere. We might convert some political illiterates—and on this question I think that the Prime Minister is one. I have here a transcript of his interview in the programme "This Week," from which my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South East (Mr. Callaghan) has already quoted. He was interviewed on 20th February by William Rees-Mogg, Bryan Magee and George ffitch—two interviewers of Tory inclination and one of Labour inclination.
They were asking him questions related to the cost of living and our current economic difficulties. They referred to interest charges to local authorities, which vitally influence rents, and land prices. I want to quote verbatim, otherwise hon. Members may think that I am telling lies. What the Prime Minister said verges on political and economic illiteracy—and, indeed, grammatical illiteracy.
When he was asked about the present economic situation, he said:
Well, I've no doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be considering this. If we thought that our prices were becoming uncompetitive, this has been always I think the danger, I've always felt that for instance that if we could exercise a reasonable wage restraint, that there's no reason why our exports shouldn't go on rising. I think in the last two years in particular we've had the edge for instance on our Continental competitors, and that's been very valuable. And the only thing that really can threaten I think our export performance is if wages go up too fast. So I hope that in Neddy and in other places we shall be able to convince the trade unions that there should be a reasonable advance in wages and not an excessive one.

In the space of half a minute, in giving that answer, he mentioned wages three times. He referred to wage restraint, the responsibility of the unions and the necessity to avoid excessive wages increases.
The hon. Member for Ilford, South, went out of his way to say that, although we must have an incomes policy, we could not forecast and control profit margins, and therefore presumably could not influence them in any way. But profits are incomes to some people. The hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) referred on many occasions to the control of wages, but he never suggested any control on profits, still less on dividends and Rachman rents.
This is the climate in which we are discussing a national incomes policy. The overall climate in this respect is one that we must create, and it can be created only by Government action. Until it is created we cannot persuade the unions to accept a measure of limitation to their demands. It is impossible to talk about an incomes policy in the context of controls. I do not believe that in a free society such as ours we shall ever get anybody voluntarily to agree to a control on the demands for increased incomes which are constantly made by shareholders, wage earners, salary earners and the rest. All that the Government can do is to create a social climate in which every section of the community feels that it is being treated fairly and justly, and is getting a fair share of the national income. Then, and only then, will we get people to accept a measure of restraint.
Our argument—and it is a legitimate one—is that if we ask any of the rank and file workers of this country if they think that the economic and social policies which the Government have been pursuing over the last 12 years have fulfilled the necessary conditions, namely, the creation of social justice and equity, the answer is a resounding "No".
I want to deal with some of the Prime Minister's other answers in his television interview. He referred to wages, but never at any point to dividends, profits and rents. Despite the denial of the hon. Member for Ilford, South and other hon. Members about their attitude of hostility to the trade unions, there is no doubt that one of the tactics of the


Conservative Party from now to the election will be to pin upon the workers the blame for the economic crisis that the Government have created.
It is not coincidental that the Motion on the Order Paper asking for an inquiry into trade union law and practice appears a few months before the election. It is not coincidental that we have had speeches from the Chancellor—he said the same thing today—suggesting that the wage-cost element is of vital importance to our export trade. Nobody denies that, but if we compare the wage-cost elements of our competitors overseas with our own we find that ours is rather less than most others.
We have had other evidence which suggests that the Government have been seeking to incite workers to strike action. The Postmaster-General went out of his way to deny to Post Office workers what most people regarded as a reasonable wage demand for one of the most dedicated and underpaid sections of our community. The Postmaster-General said, "If you strike, your pension rights will be threatened." What a stupid man! But this is all part of the tactics of the party opposite to build up the feelings of the public against these men, who are doing a really worth-while job.
The Prime Minister has made the same kind of approach to the problem. He asked why my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition did not appeal to the trade unions for restraint. It is interesting that he should make that suggestion. Why does not he himself appeal? He became a trade unionist recently. Recently, the right hon. Gentleman joined the National Farmers' Union. Why does not he appeal to it? It is because he cannot, because his Government is tainted. An hon. Member opposite suggested that the courage of the present Leader of the House in imposing a wage restraint policy when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer was the reason for success, but that was wrong. It was the reason for the failure of the Government to get a response from the trade unions.
Which sections of the community were hit by the pay pause? There were the nurses, who would not strike. So the Government said to them, "No, you are not going to get your 6d. a day"—or whatever the miserable sum was. There

were the probation officers, worthy members of the community who would not strike. There were the Health Service workers, they would not strike. The Government did not tackle any of the big boys. There were the teachers; they were too respectable to strike—and I belong to them. These are the people that the Government tackled at that time. That is why they are crying for pie in the sky, for the support and co-operation of the trade unions in that context.
There is no suggestion in the pay policy that Mr. Rachman should restrict his demand to 3½ per cent. per year. There is no suggestion that rent increases should be restricted to 3½ per cent. per year. We take the view that if there is to be an incomes policy it should relate to all incomes, or none. Mention of Rachman and the land racketeers leads me again to the remarks of the Prime Minister when he was quizzed in the programme "This Week". There was no mention of restriction there, by heaven. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East quoted some land price figures.
I have here an enormous number of such figures and I propose to quote some of them. There is the case of a piece of land at Luton which was referred to in The Times of 5th July, 1960.
An investment company has paid £250,000 for a site of just over half an acre now used as a car park in the centre of Luton. The price paid is believed to be the highest price an acre recorded in Britain".
Then again n Reading,
A maisonette site of one and a half acres at Reading has changed hands at £37,000 by auction.
That is quoted in the Builder of 5th May, 1961.
At Wilmslow, a favourite (Manchester) dormitory area, for middle and upper income group families, 20 acres of farmland, valued at £100 an acre five years ago, recently fetched £3,000 an acre—30 times as much.
That was quoted in the Daily Mail of 20th June, 1961.
There are literally scores of these figures which I could quote. When discussing this in that wonderful broadcast, the Prime Minister, the "matchstick economist"—and by heaven, he is all that—talked about confiscation of land, and said that land nationalisation was confiscation. The right hon. Gentleman


should know all about the confiscation of land; he has lived on it. Where do the Government think that the Prime Minister got his land? Did he pay compensation for his land? He stole it. His family stole it. And when they talk to us about the confiscation of land, and nationalisation meaning confiscation, I would say that never at any time did a Labour Government nationalise without paying compensation. One of the chief beneficiaries from the nationalisation of the coal industry was the Prime Minister's family. He and his family have lived on the backs of the workers in the coal mining industry all their lives. And they got far too much compensation at the time when the coal mines were nationalised. Let us hear no more nonsense about that.
Obviously, the Prime Minister had not been told what his own colleagues had been saying. In that broadcast he said that we either nationalise, which meant confiscation, or allow the market forces to work. But he could not have read what his own Minister of Housing and Local Government had said on 18th November in the House:
What troubles people most is the profit that individuals are making—in some cases big money—out of land transactions. This is because land, which is so necessary, is scarce and because it is made scarcer by planning control.
He went on to say:
It does seem right that that increase should be collected by the public.
He added:
It is a corollary of regional development that land planned for major development should be bought well in advance by a public authority for disposal to private enterprise or to public enterprise as required, both to control and phase the development and to help in meeting the cost of bringing it into development. We may well have to devise new machinery for the purpose."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1963; Vol. 684, c. 654–56.]
I wish to ask the Minister whether that new machinery has been devised. When are we to get the Government's public ownership of land to deal with these betterment costs which must and should approve to the public instead of to private landlords? These are points which we are seeking to put into a national context. We shall never get a national incomes policy unless and until we tackle all these facets of the problem.
When the hon. Member for Ilford, South and several others, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer, ask how we are to solve this problem and other problems and where we are to get the money for our schemes, I would answer frankly that no hon. Member on this side of the House is under any illusion about the difficulties involved in getting a national incomes policy. All that we say, in general terms, is that we still seek to create the social atmosphere of which I spoke earlier. That will convince the vast majority of the workers that they have a Government who are interested in them and not in the land racketeers, the Rachmans and the rest.
National Health Service charges have been mentioned, I think rightly, in this context. The hon. Member was about 300 per cent. out in his estimate of this figure. I think the figure for National Health Service charges is about £50 million. He said that this would mean increased taxation, but that is a lot of rubbish. It would mean nothing of the kind. The £50 million is taxation now. It is coming from old-age pensioners and the chronic sick. We say that that £50 million burden on the chronic sick and the old will be transferred to sounder shoulders which are better able to bear it. It will mean a transfer of a burden rather than an increased burden. Is that fairly clear to the hon. Member, or has he to get his matchsticks out?
The same applies to the pensions scheme. Someone asked, from where should we get all the money for the national superannuation scheme? The answer is laid out in considerable detail in our policy programme. We said frankly and openly that some workers in the upper income brackets will have to pay more in increased contributions and those with lesser incomes, below the average, will pay less than they currently pay. For them a surplus will be built up which will be invested by the trustees of the scheme, thereby ensuring that the workers of the country get a share of the increased productivity which we hope will come from industry and the national plan which we shall put into being.
It comes ill from the party opposite to ask us where we are to get the money from in view of all the promises we have


had in the last six months. The Robbins Committee proposals are to cost £3,500 million over the next 10 years and the Government accepted that within 24 hours of the Report coming out. I do not think the Prime Minister had even opened its cover in Kinross before he accepted it. Hon. Members opposite should not come that lark of saying, where is the money to come from? If we had had an increase of 4 per cent. per year in the national product over the last 12 years we could have done a lot more than has been done. That is the fault of the Government.
On the question of the cost of living, no party can say with its hand on its heart that it has a solution. No party can claim a better record than the other because conditions in which we were working were completely different. Anyone who faces the problem honestly knows that that is so. We claim, and passionately believe, that we can produce social policies, economic policies which will expand the economy at a much steadier and faster rate than the Government have done in the last 12 years. Having expanded it, we believe we can distribute the products in a much more equitable way than the Government have done in the last 12 years. In that context we believe we can get the organised workers to play their part with us, which they will certainly not do with the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. We are to have a General Election soon; I wish that it would come tomorrow.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. George Darling: I suppose it was to be expected with the General Election only a short time ahead that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give us a party political knockabout turn in response to the critical analysis of cost of living problems made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). I suppose it was too much to expect even from the Chancellor a sober, objective examination of the difficult problem of costs and prices.
The Chancellor told us that he was fighting a battle against rising prices, but he told us very little more. Yet I feel sure that if we could emerge from this pre-election atmosphere—which I think impossible—we would agree that the

question of ever-rising prices is one of the most crucial and difficult problems facing any Government. I am sorry that the Chancellor is not here now because I wanted to take up a point he injected into the debate—his tendentious statement that savings will fall under a Labour Government. I thought that unworthy of him. I want to know whether that is the start of a new Post Office Savings scare ready for the election. If that is the level of political argument to which the right hon. Gentleman will stoop, we should tell the public right away what we have to deal with.
The right hon. Gentleman may think that he served his party well with a thoroughly partisan speech, but very few people outside this Committee will feel convinced that he served the nation's interests. He compared conditions today with what they were in 1951, in the early post-war years—without, of course, admitting the difficulties of that time, the contining shortages of goods, the sellers' market in which price increases were very difficult to control, the tremendous job of unwinding the war machine and creating a new industrial set-up to serve peaceful purposes after the war. People will remember those difficulties. I think they will also remember, as the right hon. Gentleman chose to forget, that the Labour Government had to contend with a second war which, as he knows, sent prices of raw materials rocketing throughout the world.
I mention this point because those who were here then remember the very brave and heartening words with which the right hon. Member or Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) gave whole-hearted backing to the Labour Government's decision to support the United Nations' military operations in Korea. But we also remember, with a great deal less satisfaction, how the spirit of patriotism in the Conservative Party quickly evaporated when they saw the opportunity to turn the Labour Government's difficulties to their own party advantage. The right hon. Gentleman is asking for our help in his difficult circumstances. Is he entitled, on this record, to ask for it? It was precisely at the time of Korea, in the Labour Government's most difficult circumstances, that the posters went up appealing to the people to "Stop the hole in the purse". The


right hon. Gentleman's memory may be conveniently short, but I do not think that ordinary, fair-minded people outside the House will easily forget those circumstances. But they will remember this Government's record in years of peace.
I think that the most revealing aspect of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was that he found it possible to make comparisons between 1951 and 1964—between the situation six years after the end of the war and the situation 18 or 19 years after the hostilities ceased. This is an admission that, although there has been some progress in these years, there has been so little progress in the piping years of peace, in industrial expansion, in trade development, in the modernisation of industry and in our social system that he can easily compare today's conditions with the conditions which the nation had to face six years after the end of the war. In fact, the conditions of the people today should be well beyond comparison. Our living standards should by now be immeasurably better than they were 12 or 13 years ago—and I repeat, "immeasurably better".
The truth is that for millions of our people there has been little or no improvement since those early post-war years. They are still badly housed, their incomes are low, and they cannot share in what should have been a steadily expanding economy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) clearly explained. And the Government's failure to keep prices down so that the people with the lowest incomes could reach a more satisfactory standard of life is only one part of their general failure—the one which we are discussing today. We shall have ample opportunity to discuss the other parts of the failure when we come to the General Election—that is, when the Prime Minister plucks up courage to dissolve this Parliament, which has already sat too long.
I do not want to go back in time over the whole field of the Government's record. I want to draw attention to what has been happening in the past two years under the right hon. Gentleman's Administration and also to look at the sharp rise in prices over the last few months—a rise in prices which is still continuing. I agree with the Chancellor

that retail prices have gone up by about 5 per cent. in the last two years, but I think that he will agree that price increases even on this scale are bound to threaten the success of any incomes policy. The trade unions in those circumstances are bound to demand higher pay in order to cover higher prices. That is what they are for. After all, trade unions in what should be a period of economic expansion are not concerned merely to keep wages level with rising prices. They want more than that. If that is all that can be obtained it is not progress, because everybody is standing still; wages go up but they do not buy more.
That is why I am glad to note that at long last the National Economic Development Council—and we must remind ourselves always that the Chancellor is its chairman—and the F.B.I. and the British Employers' Confederation are trying to put things in the right order. They are no longer saying that we must keep wages down to give us stable prices and thus avoid inflation. They are beginning to argue that we must keep prices stable so that increases in wages and other incomes can be contained within our rate of economic growth and by this means we shall avoid inflation.
In other words, stable prices now come first and we must emphasise this because it is germane to the whole argument. This is the answer to the remarks of the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne), who is no longer in the Chamber—which helps to solve a lot of difficulties.
If we are to make stable prices the first aim of Government policy—and I hope that the Chancellor agrees with doing that—we must alter radically many of this Government's policies which have deliberately forced up prices over the last decade. As has been admitted by the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid)—who is also not now in his place—the Government are responsible in large measure for the rising level of prices, a level which is now reaching extremely serious proportions.
I feel that I should apologise to the Chancellor for rather strenuously interjecting a question in what I will call the knockabout part of his speech when he appealed to industry, employees, employers and unions to work together. I


apologise for shouting my interjection. My excuse is that he goaded me into it, when he declared that he was giving a lead to the nation and said how it was necessary for industry, employers and unions to work together to keep prices stable.
The right hon. Gentleman has not given a lead. He has merely announced an excellent collection of platitudes, but has given no detailed plans. The Government have presented no plan at all to the N.E.D.C. but have merely left all the planning to the council. There is much the Government can and should do to give a really practical lead, not in words but actions.
Let us consider some of the items in the retail price index which have and are increasing in price. Several hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East, have referred to house rents and mortgage payments. Without going over the whole issue again, I will refer to the assessment of housing costs made by the city architect of Sheffield, based on the cost of housing in Sheffield, about which, I imagine, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Sir P. Roberts) knows something. I draw atten-to one factor in the assessment. The cost of building a house valued at £2,500 works out at £36 a year, while the interest charges on the operation amount to £113 a year, three times the cost of building the house.
Are wages responsible for increasing prices? Of course not. Are the Government incapable of finding a way of getting rid of this intolerable burden of debt on our housing activities? Housing costs must be reduced so that we can bring down the price of rents and thus reduce that part of the cost of living, for it is a very important part. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East explained how the Government had exacerbated the rents problem—the 1957 Act, higher interest charges and extortionate land costs, all of which must be paid for in higher rents. This also applies to owner occupiers and mortgage payments.
The right hon. Gentleman in his speech ran away from this immense problem of land costs, ever-rising rents and house building charges, yet it is, as I say, an important factor in the cost

of living. I notice from some of the returns recently published that in some cases rents are now amounting to a quarter of families' incomes. This is a serious problem. The Chancellor has no answer to it and I am sure that the Minister without Portfolio will not give us an answer to it tonight.
As I think the right hon. Gentleman knows, I spent some years as an industrial reporter, and in that time attended scores of meetings and Press conferences called by industrial concerns. It was a fixed rule among the reporters that if the chairman or managing director had his public relations officer sitting by his side and called on him to answer some of the questions, the firm had something to hide and we would not get satisfactory answers.
That is the situation we face tonight. I had hoped that we could have extracted from the Government some constructive ideas on how this serious prices problem could be tackled, not by exhortation—which is, apparently, still the only thing the Chancellor can offer—but with some practical plans, but I know that we will not get them from the "public relations officer".
My hon. Friends have gone through the retail price index to show how prices are still going up. Let me select from the list of foodstuffs one item that has not been mentioned. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, in many cases foodstuffs are the biggest item in the family budget. Bread has gone up 7 per cent. in the last two years. Are the Government taking any steps to check this increase? As far as I can see, they are preparing to stimulate even higher prices for bread and flour confectionery in the Agriculture and Horticulture Bill, now going through another place. Part I of that Bill gives the Minister of Agriculture authority to fix minimum import prices for wheat, flour, and all the other cereals we import; and also to put on taxes to bring import prices to these minimum levels.
In passing, I should mention that it is only a sheer coincidence that this import price and levy arrangement is in line with the Common Market import control arrangements. That, we are told, is only a coincidence, and has nothing to do with any possibility of our going into the Common Market.
But the Minister's price-fixing powers under the Bill do not stop there. He can use them for all foodstuffs. As he has told us that the next in line is meat, let us look at what is happening there. Meat prices have so far gone up by only 5 per cent. in the last two years, but though the voluntary import control arrangements that the Minister has introduced, in anticipation of the action he will take when his Bill is enacted, have hardly yet started to work, the prices of Argentine beef in Smithfield—as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) has said—have already gone up 30 per cent. as compared with prices a year ago. It is quite true that the Ministry will save on food subsidies but, as I am sure hon. Members on both sides who have taken part in the discussions on the Agriculture and Horticulture Bill will agree, it will be extremely difficult for the Minister to check increases in meat prices under the new arrangements he has in mind.
Milk is another important item in the cost of living, and I should be very surprised if, in the present Price Review, the Minister does not agree to another halfpenny a pint on milk prices. Then there are all the items subject to the Purchase Tax—but I shall not go into the long list. The point is that that these things, for which the Government are responsible, add up to a stiff increase in total prices, and add considerably to the burden of the cost of living.
Another worrying thing about food prices of which the right hon. Gentleman does not seem aware is that the factory prices of processed foods are now beginning to go up very considerably, and I am convinced that before long this trend will be reflected markedly in the retail price index.
Yesterday, we were discussing the abolition of reseale price maintenance. Some of my hon. Friends have already mentioned that many firms are already increasing their prices in anticipation of this abolition. I have here a circular sent round by wholesalers who handle photographic materials. It is dated 25th February, 1964, and is headed "Price increases". It reads:

All photo prices will be increased from March 15th, 1964. These increases will be most apparent in the camera-body and lenses categories, amounting possibly to 6–10 per cent, in these instances, Increased prices for all projectors are already in operation, as you probably know.
Then we come to what is a warning to the Chancellor.
The firm goes on to say:
We would naturally like to give you a new price list for the week ending March 14th but as Budget Day is exactly one month later on April 14th, we feel that the wisest course is to put a new price list into print as quickly as possible after Budget day, and we have planned accordingly.
I have a list of some of the price increases but I will not go into them now. It is obvious that the trend towards higher prices is going on. The Chancellor must agree that the facts given on both sides of the Committee today show this but, as far as I can see, he is doing precisely nothing about it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East, has already referred to a survey, of which I thought I was the only Member present to have a copy. It was presented to the National Incomes Commission by the Purchasing Officers' Association. I do not want to go over again the observations made on that survey by my hon. Friend, except to point out that this was a survey by sample, as I think the Chancellor knows, over a wide range of industries covering about 350 firms and supplies worth nearly £2,400 million. This is a big slice of our trading operations.
It is quite clear from this evidence that prices over an immense range of goods have recently been increased far beyond what was reasonable. These higher prices, of course, must eventually influence the cost of living. The conclusions of these purchasing officers, who buy supplies for manufacturing firms and public services, suggest that the engineering wages award should not have increased prices by more than 2½ per cent. or 3 per cent. My calculation, for what it is worth, is that it should have been far less than 2 per cent. The point I want to make about this is that I refuse to believe, from what little experience I have of travelling round industry both in years gone by and recently, that engineering firms cannot in the course of one year so improve


their methods and efficiency as to be able to absorb an overall price increase, due to a wages increase, of somewhere between 1 per cent. and 2 per cent.

Sir P. Roberts: I referred to this in my speech. The hon. Member knows that there was a backlog of rising costs behind the engineering industry and it is quite improper to suggest that this wages award was the only thing that was being caught up.

Mr. Darling: As the hon. Member knows, in many sections of his own industry when lists of increased prices are being sent out the only factor that the manufacturers in many cases refer to is wages. I agree with the hon. Member that there is a backlog, but in many cases that backlog of costs to him is due to the same circumstances—that the firms which supply him have not absorbed their wage increases. This goes on cumulatively. Somehow the Government must step in and deal with it. There are other increases coming along, and in the time left to me I should like to say something about what I think the Government should do.
I will turn to a capitalist country, the United Slates. I think that the Chancellor knows that Mr. McNamara, the United States Secretary of State for Defence, has shown us one way in which a Government can tackle this problem of firms charging too much, or of not being sufficiently price-conscious as to try deliberately all the time to bring costs and prices down. What Mr. McNamara has done is to write to every industrial firm in America that has a defence contract, telling it to cut its costs and bring its prices down. He has done more than ask these firms to charge less for their supplies to the Government. He has sent explanatory memoranda. He has sent industrialists, recruited for the purpose, to explain to the firms. He has called conferences, he has had films shown to illustrate to them how they can bring down their costs and prices, how to cut out the frills, how to introduce new methods and install new machinery, and what kind of new machinery to install for different operations.
By all accounts, this has been a very rewarding policy. The defence costs are coming down and so is the United

States defence budget. Why cannot we do this kind of thing here, and not only on Government contracts? There are many ways now being canvassed by which the Government can intervene in order to help industrialists to become cost conscious, and bring down their costs and prices.
The right hon. Gentleman had an opportunity today to try to explain his attitude to some of these suggestions, some of which have been put up to the National Economic Development Council of which he is chairman, but he has not taken advantage of that opportunity. What about a central register of prices? Is this not worth discussing —a register, the idea has come from the employers and not from the trade union side, in which firms intending to increase their prices would have to submit details and prepare to have their costs and trading circumstances examined?
I am glad to see the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery) here. I am sorry that he was not here to hear the tributes that were paid to him and to the work of his Purchasing Officers' Association.

Mr. Peter Emery: I thank the hon. Member for giving way. I apologise for not being present earlier. I suggest that the hon. Member should have looked at all of the report and not just at those parts of it which are most beneficial to the case that he is making.

Mr. W. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman should have heard all of the debate.

Mr. Darling: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Reading felt that he had to make that kind of intervention, because he has not heard my speech.
What about a register such as I have described, so that if a case to raise prices appeased on examination to be unacceptable, the firm concerned would have to face adverse publicity, and from that point of view would perhaps have difficulty in obtaining contracts? Of course, this could not apply to consumer goods. By why not look at the possibility of giving to the Consumer Council a bigger staff and opportunities to examine price increases in the range of consumer goods? There are many other ways in which this could be done.
The situation in this country really calls for constructive Government action. We must now accept the proposition that stable prices are essential to our whole national well-being. There is no question about it. We cannot contemplate any further trend towards inflation. We have got to keep prices steady, as many of my hon. Friends have said, to prevent any further erosion of the real incomes of our people. We have got to have stability to make possible further advances in social welfare and the raising of living standards, and we must keep prices in this country stable to further the essential expansion of exports on which our whole prosperity ultimately depends.
It is no use, as the right hon. Gentleman did, voicing these unquestioned objectives unless we have a Government that is prepared to act on them. The part that the Government must play in a crucial exercise of this kind is not easy to define, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would agree, but the Government have got to create the right kind of atmosphere in which there can be co-operation between industry, the trade unions, the workers, the Government and everybody else. Then, in that atmosphere, with persuasion, publicity and encouragement in every possible way—perhaps in dealing with Government contracts to begin with to show how the thing can be done—we can make sure that everyone in the exercise plays his part.
But at some point, I am convinced, the Government must have the right to step in and order investigations into costs and prices where they appear to be excessive, and, above all, the Government must themselves pursue policies which help to keep costs and prices down and not, by their misguided actions, stimulate price increases as this Government have done.
Our complaint against the Government is that they have not even yet properly understood the problem of prices. This must be so if we are to measure their understanding by their actions. Neither have they properly understood the dangers which we face as a result of their neglect of what is in the modern world a Government responsibility, that is, keeping the price

level steady. It is time that this Government got out of the way so that we may have one that will get on with the job.

9.1 p.m.

The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. W. F. Deedes): There have been aspects of the debate which remind us, if we need to be reminded, that we are approaching a General Election campaign. I say at once that I exempt from this the bulk of the speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling), and I acknowledge the constructive note on which he concluded.
I thought that there was a touch of irony, however, in the opening speech of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-(Mr. Callaghan). During the course of some personal references to me, to which I take no exception, the hon. Gentleman spoke of the "Minister for Party Propaganda". Portions of his speech satisfied me that he has very little to learn in such matters. I willingly acknowledge a craftsman in the subject.
Having said that, I feel that it would be churlish not to acknowledge with gratitude, if with some surprise, the tribute which the hon. Gentleman paid to our social programmes. If I understood him aright, he accepted the programmes as adequate, but he doubted our capacity to achieve them. If he will study the record in education and a good deal else, he will see that the programmes are by no means out of line with what has already been achieved.
On the face of it, it is a little surprising that hon. Members opposite should seek at this moment to challenge comparison between what happened to prices during their period of office and what has happened during ours, making full allowance, as I am prepared to do, for all the difficulties of their years, which were referred to by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis) and carefully reiterated by the hon. Member for Hillsborough. I accept all that, but, even accepting it, the plain fact is—since a number of facts have gone on the record today, this really must be added—that in those years prices rose, on average, by 6½ per cent. per annum—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about the difficulties?"] I am taking


into account all the difficulties. They rose by 40 per cent. in all, food prices rising by about 8 per cent. per year.

Mr. Willis: How much did import prices rise in that period?

Mr. Deedes: I am acknowledging the Korean War and all the rest. The fact still remains that, in our 12½ years of office, prices have risen by exactly half that amount, in the past six years by about 13 per cent.

Mr. Willis: Tell us the truth.

Mr. Deedes: I am pointing the contrast.
The average rise in prices under this Administration has been roughly half, and when full account is taken of postwar difficulties, the Korean War, import prices and all the rest, there remains something more than can be explained away. Moreover, it should be added that the removal of food subsidies, in relaxation of rent control and allowing the nationalised industries to charge commercial prices all fell to us. I must add, too, in the light of some of the things said today, that in 1963 the index of retail prices rose by just over 2 points, rather less than in the two preceding years.
Even acknowledging the post-war difficulties of the party opposite, there is this to be added. It inherited and kept in being a number of the wartime controls which, at least, according to its own doctrines, should have contributed to stability. When, after taking office—I remember this well, as will other hon. Members—we gave notice that we proposed to dismantle some of those controls, we were warned repeatedly by the party opposite that this would accelerate the increase in prices. As the record shows, it did nothing of the kind.
Like my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I do not think that the subject of the cost of living which we have been debating today can altogether be separated from the subject of the standard of living. This point was made by the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison). It was made also by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Sir P. Roberts), whose speech was heard with attention by the whole Committee.

He was quite right in saying that there is always, at this stage in the life of any Parliament, a tendency to refer to the particular difficulties of the least fortunate, and this is right.
Members of the party opposite, however, know quite well that during the past 12 years the standard of living has risen dramatically, not for a few, but for the great majority. It has risen in reality by about 40 per cent., which is more than in the whole of the first half of this century. This is not a statistic. It is a reality and one which can be well understood by the many millions of people who are enjoying it.
It would be easy, and it would be unfair, to contrast this with the living standards under Socialist austerity. I do not do that. Rather, I remind the party opposite that this increase surely accords with the ideals which have been expressed by the party opposite since its earliest years. Much that the predecessors of hon. Members opposite have fought for over the years has now come to pass. I do not expect right hon. and hon. Members opposite to applaud this in election year. [Interruption.] There is, and there always will be, a minority which justifies not only anxiety, but the criticism of the Opposition. I acknowledge that. The party opposite should, however, at least acknowledge that there has been this major change and not censure it, as hon. Members opposite sometimes do, by implying that it can be demoralising.
Perhaps a this has not been as wisely spent as some would wish. I see nothing surprising in that and nothing to deride in it. Nothing marks the party opposite as being so out of touch as the current attitude which so many of its members adopt to the higher prosperity which is enjoyed by so many.
Of course, that brings problems in its train, and we do not ignore them. I accept at once that while increased prosperity may reduce penury it does not always reduce anxiety. The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North referred to young couples who were owner-occupiers. It is true that there are a large number of people, including married couples, and particularly the young, with heavy personal commitments. These, however, are problems of a different scale and from a different age


from that to which so many hon. Members opposite are rooted. They arise from an entirely different situation.
The fact is that the margin which divides a family from fear of poverty has widened in recent years for millions Surely this is a matter for rejoicing. One would have expected some slight acknowledgement of it in the speeches by hon. Members opposite today. If they are to criticise—and there always is something to criticise—then it lies upon them to make clear how they would accelerate these current processes. Rising costs are certainly the most serious consideration for the consumer, but it is quite untrue to suggest, as the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) did, that the Government do not care about this or think that it is a matter of no importance.

Mr. Marsh: I did not say that the Government do not care. I said that they do not understand. I do not believe that right hon. and hon. Members opposite are wicked men, but that they are stupid men.

Mr. Deedes: The policies which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has tirelessly pursued, and is tirelessly pursuing, are all directed to the problem of prices and costs. He has reiterated again and again the conditions needed to achieve what the Opposition have been demanding throughout the debate. But rising costs are not the only consideration in terms of this debate. There are others—shoddy goods, short weight and hire-purchase frauds—all of which bear very closely on the subject. Any bad deal for the customer is an invisible rise in the cost of living, and in recent years we have gone some way to reducing the number of such bad deals.
The Molony Report was a landmark in that respect and it has been acted upon. One of its products is the Consumer Council, which marks its first birthday this month. Another is the Hire-Purchase (No. 2) Bill, now in Standing Committee. The third is the Weights and Measures Act, 1963, which bears very acutely on the problem. This was described by the Molony Report as part of the basic vocabulary of consumer protection. In this respect, we have gone a very long way in trying to get for the customer better value for money.

Mr. Darling: Would the right hon. Gentleman care to quote the Molony Report on the attitude of the Government to weights and measures legislation?

Mr. Deedes: I can quote the Report in a number of directions and not all would be favourable to the Opposition.
I am glad to see here the hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater), who suggested that the cost of living had wiped out wage increases. That idea will not stand examination. Of course, it is true—and no one can say that the Government have not made it plain—that real incomes cannot advance faster than the rate of economic growth and that wage and salary increases in excess of that rate of growth will largely be gained only at the expense of others.

Mr. Monslow: I accept that there must be a wages policy, but how do the Government expect to have such a policy when, for instance, a five-fold increase in rents has occurred in London during the last few years?

Mr. Deedes: The hon. Member's question is not addressed to the remarks which I am making. There can be no question at all of the gains which have been won in this respect by manual workers, even the most lowly paid. I am now directly answering the hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North. One can take any years in this debate, as I am aware, but I shall take the two years to December, 1963, when the index of retail prices increased by 4·2 points and when weekly wage rates for all manual workers in all industries rose by 8·5 per cent., hourly rates by 8·9 per cent., and salaries by 10·6 per cent., a comparison which stands in respect of even the lowest-paid wage earner. Wage council rates arose by 7·4 per cent. against the 4·2 points increase in prices.
Something was said by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East and other hon. Members about the nationalised industries and their contribution in this respect. We have had two main views on this subject. The hon. Member for Greenwich quoted with approval the assertion that the nationalised industries had made a major contribution to keeping prices down, and the hon. Lady


the Member for Lanarkshire, North said that we had given rather grudging acknowledgement in some of our attitudes. However, the main criticism of hon. Members opposite was the obligation which we have imposed on nationalised industries to pay their way.
I remind the Committee of the basis of our policy in the words of the White Paper on the Financial and Economic Obligations of the Nationalised Industries:
… there are powerful grounds in the national interest for requiring these undertakings to make a substantial contribution towards the cost of their capital development out of their earnings, and so reduce their claims upon the nation's savings and the burden on the Exchequer: this is particularly so for those undertakings which are expanding fast and which have relatively large capital needs.
In the light of what has been said in the debate, it is fair to ask hon. Members opposite whether they accept the broad obligation of the nationalised industries to pay their way, or whether they would use them as a means of subsidising the consumer, and in so doing milking the taxpayer, who is also a consumer. That is the question which they must meet.
The hon. Member for Greenwich and others referred to pension and pensioners. The hon. Member spoke of the squalid, deprived life of the pensioner, which was a rather selective phrase. I willingly acknowledge that I have never accepted that the subject of pensions can be adequately dealt with exclusively with statistics. Any major change in the standard of living such as we have experienced—since the war, if hon. Members like—undoubtedly has repercussions on those who have retired which are not wholly met by any pension system, however ingenious or however generous.
Increasingly, life is judged not by an absolute standard—adequacy of food, warmth or clothing—but by the comparative standard. It is increasingly the experience of communities where prosperity increases that one judges by the standards of neighbours in the same street. I acknowledge this. The deficiencies felt, as they are felt today, must be acknowledged, and they go some way beyond what has been said about the level of pensions proposed by one side or the other.
All I would say in answer to one of the main criticisms is that we have fulfilled the undertaking which we made in this direction. During the course of the years, we have given increases of National Insurance pensions and public service pensions on five occasions. While, in the light of what I have just said, I would not regard statistical evidence as being conclusive, none the less the figures in this respect bear looking at and quoting.

Mr. Monslow: Will the Minister give us, at the same time, the decrease in the purchasing value of the £, and the increase in contributions?

Mr. Deedes: The hon. Gentleman makes observations not related to the remarks which I am in the process of trying to deliver.
There has, naturally, been a tendency today to concentrate attention on those who have not fared so well. I accept that as fair. I accept as fair some of the things which have been said. There remains, and there probably always will be, a minority—those with fixed incomes—who have suffered absolute as well as relative decline in their standards of living. I would not attempt to gloss it over, but that is what an incomes policy—what our incomes policy—is about.
It is here that without an incomes policy the heaviest losses are incurred. It is on behalf of those people that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchqeuer has reiterated time and again not only the principles needed for sound growth, not only the principles needed for expansion without inflation, but the consequences of ignoring those principles for those whom we are now discussing.
Paradoxically, the acceptance of the doctrine that the increase in incomes must be related to increases in productivity is more important for those with fixed incomes than for the producers themselves. That is not the least reason why an incomes policy is at the forefront of our economic approach, and why we have shown a willingness to fortify it by every possible means.

Mr. Callaghan: I have listened with attention to the right hon. Gentleman. When does he propose to deal with the theme which ran through so many speeches from this side of the Committee, namely the scandal of land prices,


and its effect on housing rents and on the cost of houses, in view of the fact that according to the index of retail prices the increase in the cost of housing is greater than any other single element?

Mr. Deedes: No doubt when the time comes both my party and the hon. Gentleman's party will produce the plans which they think will solve that problem. All I say to the hon. Gentleman is that we shall not solve the problem of land prices with anything in the nature of a National Land Commission. We shall not solve the problem by adopting the proposals put forward by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Callaghan: I am prepared to debate our poposals at any time, but this Vote is on the Government's administration. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the Prime Minister's view that it is only through a free market that this problem will be solved? Are we to expect prices to continue to rise? That is what the Prime Minister said on television during a discussion in "Gallery".

Mr. Deedes: That is the hon. Gentleman's version, and I must pay attention to it, but I do not accept what he says as evidence.
The battle against rising prices—and here I join issue with the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton)—is not one which this or any other Government can expect to win outright; it is not one in which either party will score a final victory. The hon. Gentleman was right in saying that there was no final solution. Every industrial country in the West has to fight rising prices, as do some other countries. Some are doing it with more success than others. The battle is implicit in the kind of economy that we run and which we like to run, an economy which carries marked advantages which we should be sorry to forgo—full employment, growth, and rising personal expectations.
I certainly do not accept the doctrine of the few, that this is a battle on which ground can be lost without a struggle. Rising prices have to be fought, but there is more than one way of doing it.

I say in all frankness to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) that it will not be done simply by pinning the salaries of Members of Parliament.
I conclude with the thought that the hon. Member for Hillsborough produced at the end of his speech. There rests with any Government an obligation to influence conditions of growth with the appropriate weapons, and these do not include a pool of unemployment, which, in the past, some have not been above suggesting might be the solution of some Tory Governments. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has exerted such influence and has used such weapons, and has called in new weapons to his aid. Beyond this, a Government really have two choices. One is—[HON. MEMBERS: "Resign."] One is statutory control—[Interruption.] I shall get it across, whatever hon. Members say. One choice is statutory controls. The experience of the party opposite does not convince me—nor do I think that it will convince many other people—that that is the right choice.
The other choice is the force of competition. That is the instrument that we prefer, and in selecting it we give notice that we intend to strengthen our hand. Hon. Members may say that we lack the courage of our convictions. I wonder whether the party opposite would show half as much courage. On the record of the 20 years that we have been surveying in this debate I do not hesitate to assert that our choice is the right one, and that it will be endorsed by the consumers and the electors during the coming years.

Mr. Darling: Before the right hon. Member concludes this rather knock-about turn, will he tell us what is the Government's policy to deal with rising land prices? He has been asked several times. Will he now answer?

Mr. Deedes: I gave the hon. Member a perfectly fair answer. I said that the time would come when both sides would offer the country their solution to this problem and that we would leave it to their choice with every confidence.

Question put, That a sum not exceeding £1,779,405,100 be granted for the said Service:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 208. Noes 269.

Division No. 43.]
AYES
[9.29 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Harper, Joseph
Paget, R. T.


Ainsley, William
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Albu, Austen
Hayman, F. H.
Parker, John


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Healey, Denis
Parkin, B. T.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur(Rwly Regis)
Pavitt, Laurence


Bacon, Miss Alice
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Barnett, Guy
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Peart, Frederick


Beaney, Alan
Hilton. A. V.
Pentland, Norman


Bellenger, Fit. Hon. F. J.
Holman, Percy
Prentice, R, E.


Bence, Cyril
Holt, Arthur
Price, J. T, (Westhoughton)


Benn, Anthony Wedgwood
Hooson, H. E.
Probert, Arthur


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Houghton, Douglas
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Blackburn, F.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Randall, Harry


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Howie, w.
Rankin, John


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, s. w.)
Hoy, James H.
Redhead, E. C.


Bowles, Frank
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Boyden, James
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Reid, William


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Reynolds, G. W.


Bradley, Tom
Hunter, A. E.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hynd, H. (Acorington)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Irvine, A, J. (Edge Hill)
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Callaghan, James
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Ross, William


Carmichael, Neil
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Jeger, George
Silkin, John


Chapman, Donald
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Cliffe, Michael
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Collick, Percy
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Skeffington, Arthur


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Small, William


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Kenyon, Clifford
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Dalyell, Tam
Lawson, George
Sorensen, R. W.


Darling, George
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Steele, Thomas


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Stonehouse, John


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lipton, Marcus
Stones, William


Deer, George
Loughlin, Charles
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Delargy, Hugh
Lubbock, Eric
Stross, Sir Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Dempsey, James
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Swain, Thomas


Diamond, John
McBride, N.
Swingler, Stephen


Dodds, Norman
MacColl, James
Symonds, J, B.


Doig, Peter
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Tavern, D.


Donnelly, Desmond
McLeavy, Frank
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Driberg, Tom
MacMillian, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)
MacPherson, Mailcalm
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Ede, Rt Hon. C.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Thornton, Ernest


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Manuel, Archie
Timmons, John


Evans, Albert
Mapp, Charles
Tomney, Frank


Fernyhough, E.
Marsh, Richard
Wade, Donald


Finch, Harold
Mendelson, J. J.
Wainwright, Edwin


Fitch, Alan
Millan, Bruce
Warbey, William


Fletcher, Eric
Milne, Edward
Watkins, Tudor


Foley, Maurice
Mitchison, G. R.
Weitzman, David


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Monslow, Walter
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Forman, J. C.
Moody, A. S.
White, Mrs. Eirene


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Morris, Charles (Opanshaw)
Whitlock, William


Galpern, Sir Myer
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Wilkins, W. A.


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
Moyle, Arthur
Willey, Frederick


Ginsburg, David
Mulley, Frederick
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Gourlay, Harry
Neal, Harold
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Greenwood, Anthony
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Grey, Charles
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
O'Malley, B. K.
Woof, Robert


Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Oram, A. E.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Oswald, Thomas
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Owen, Will
Mr. Charles A. Howell and


Harman, William
Padley, W. E.
Mr. McCann.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Arbuthnot, Sir John
Balniel, Lord


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Atkins, Humphrey
Barlow, Sir John


Allason, James
Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Barter, John




Batsford, Brian
Grosvenor, Lord Robert
Morrison, John


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Gurden, Harold
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Bell, Ronald
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Neave, Airey


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael


Berkeley, Humphry
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Bidgood, John C.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Orr, capt. L. P. S.


Biffen, John
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Hendon, North)


Biggs-Davison, John
Harvey, John (Watthamstow, E.)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Bishop, Sir Patrick
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Black, Sir Cyril
Hastings, Stephen
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Bossom, Hon. Clive
Hay, John
Parmell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Bourne-Arton, A.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Partridge, E.


Box, Donald
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Hendry, Forbes
Peel, John


Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Percival, Ian


Braine, Bernard
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Brewis, John
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pitt, Dame Edith


Bromiey-Davenport. Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Pounder, Rafton


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Qulntin
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Holland, Philip
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Hollingworth, John
Pym, Francis


Bryan, Paul
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Buck, Antony
Hopkins, Alan
Ramsden, Rt. Hon. James


Bullus, Wing commander Eric
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Burden, F. A.
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W)


Campbell, Gordon
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Rees-Davies, W. R. (Isle of Thanet)


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hughes-Young, Michael
Renton, Rt. Hon. David


Channon, H. P. G.
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Ridsdale, Julian


Chataway, Christopher
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R.(B'poot, S.)


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Iremonger, T. L.
Ropner, col. Sir Leonard


Clarke, Brig. Terence(Portsm'th, W.)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Cleaver, Leonard
James, David
Russell, Sir Ronald


Cole, Norman
Jennings, J. C.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan


Cooke, Robert
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Seymour, Leslie


Cooper, A. E.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Shaw, M.


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Shepherd, William


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Skeet, t. H. H.


Cordie, John
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John


Costain, A. p.
Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Stainton, Keith


Craddook, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Critchley, Julian
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Stevens, Geoffrey


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Stodart, J. A.


Crowder, F. P.
Kershaw, Anthony
Storey, Sir Samuel


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Kimball, Marcus
Studholrne, Sir Henry


Curran, Charles
Kirk, Peter
Summers, Sir Spencer


Currie, G. B. H.
Lambton, Viscount
Tapsell, Peter


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Dance, James
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F,
Lilley, F. J. P.
Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lindsay, Sir Martin
Teeling, Sir William


Doughty, Charles
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Temple, John M.


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Alec
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Drayson, G. B.
Loveys, Walter H.
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


du Cann, Edward
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)


Duncan, Sir James
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thompson, sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)




Elliott, R. W. (Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Emery, Peter
McLaren, Martin
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Maclean, SirFitzroy (Bute &amp; N. Ayrs)
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Errington, Sir Eric
MacLeod, Sir John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Erroll, Rt- Hon. F. J,
McMaster, Stanley R.
Touche, Rt- Hon. Sir Gordon


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Macmillan, Maurice (Hallfax)
Turner, Colin


Farr, John
Maddan, Martin
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maginnis, John E.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Maitland, Sir John
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Freeth, Denzil
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Vane, W. M. F.


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Marten, Neil
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Gammans, Lady
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Vickers, Miss Joan


Gardner, Edward
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Vesper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Gibson-Watt, David
Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)
Walder, David


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Walker, Peter


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Mawby, Ray
Warner-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Glover, Sir Douglas
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wall, Patrick


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Ward, Dame Irene


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Mills, Stratton
Webster, David


Gower, Raymond
Miscampbell, Norman
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Grant-Ferris, R.
Montgomery, Fergus
Whitelaw, William


Green, Alan
More, jasper (Ludlow)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Gresham Cooke, R.
Morgan William
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)







Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Woodhouse, C. M.



Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Woodnutt, Mark
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wise, A. R.
Woollam, John
Mr. Chichester-Clark and


Wotrige-Gordon, Patrick
Worsley, Marcus
Mr. Finlay.


Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard
Yates, William (The Wrekin)

Original Question again proposed.

It being after half-past Nine o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply), to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Vote under consideration.

Question put and agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded forthwith to put severally the Questions, That the total amounts outstanding in such Estimates for the Navy Services for the coming financial year as have been put down on at least one previous day for consideration on an allotted day, and the total amounts of all outstanding Estimates supplementary to those of the current financial year as have been presented seven clear days and of all outstanding Excess Votes be granted for the Services defined in those Estimates, Supplementary Estimates and Statements of Excess.

DEFENCE (NAVY) ESTIMATES, 1964–65

That a sum, not exceeding £77,331,000 be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1965, for expenditure in respect of Navy Services, viz.:—


Vote

£


4.
Research and Development and other Scientific Services
28,025,000


5.
Medical Services, Education and Civilians on Fleet Services
14,615,000


8.
Lands and Buildings
962,000


9.
Miscellaneous Effective Services
11,692,000


10.
Non-effective Services
22,036,000


11.
Additional Married Quarters
1,000




£77,331,000

Question put and agreed to.

CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1963–64

That a further Supplementary sum, not exceeding £48,902,600, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1964, for expenditure in respect of the following Supplementary Estimates, viz.:—

CIVIL ESTIMATES


CLASS I




£


1.
House of Lords
11,000


2.
House of Commons
10,000


6
Customs and Excise
758,000


7.
Inland Revenue
984,000


8.
Exchequer and Audit Department
4,000


9.
Civil Service Commission
49,000

Question put and agreed to.

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1963–64)

That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £616,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1964, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Defence; expenses in connection with International Defence Organisations, including international subscriptions; and certain grants in aid.

Question put and agreed to.

CIVIL ESTIMATES (EXCESS), 1962–63

That a sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to make good an excess on

Class and Vote
Excess of Expenditure over Estimate
Appropriations in Aid
Excess Vote



£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


CLASS VI











23. National Assistance Board
99,049
14
6
99,039
14
6
10
0
0


Total, Civil Estimates (Excess)






£10
0
0

Question put and agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

WAYS AND MEANS

Considered in Committee.

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1963, the sum of £10 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.—[Mr. Green.]

Resolved,
That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1964, the sum of £60,602,600 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.—[Mr. Green.]

Resolved,
That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965, the sum of £2,542,649,100 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.—[Mr. Green.]

Resolutions to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tommorrow.

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EDUCATION AND SCIENCE ORDER

9.45 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Minister for Science (Mr. Quintin Hogg): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Secretary of State for Education and Science Order 1964

the grant for the National Assistance Board for the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1963.

be made in 'he form of the draft laid before this House on 4th March.

Although this Order appears to be somewhat technical—and it is, for this reason, that I hope that my right hon. and learn ed Friend the Attorney-General will be here to deal with technical questions if necessary—it is no more than the legal machinery necessary to give effect to the Government's decision in connection with the appointment of a new Secretary of State for Education and Science. I shall, therefore, not spend the time of the House on any of the technicalities; and if there are any questions of policy my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education is ready to answer to avoid the necessity of my asking the House for leave to speak a second time.

There are, I think, only two points to be considered on this Motion. The first is the establishment of the new Secretaryship of State and the federal structure of the Department under him. The second is the transfer to hint of the functions previously held by other Departments: first, of course, the functions relating to the universities and University Grants Committee, formerly discharged by the Treasury and now by myself; secondly, the functions of the Education Department and, thirdly, the functions of the Office of the Minister for Science. It does not of course include the reorganisation between the Research Councils consequent on the Report of the Trend Committee, because that will require an Act of Parliament and will have to come later.

I do not believe that there will be much dispute about the creation of a new Secretary of State or about the federal structure of the new Department over which he will


preside. This organisation was one of the four possible models which were set up for discussion after the publication of the Robbins Report and the model follows very closely the preferred model organisation proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in his speech in the House on 19th November. It is, therefore, I would hope and expect, broadly acceptable to both sides of the House.

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained in his statement to the House, the new Department will consist of two administrative units. One of these will deal with the universities and civil science and the other with schools and other forms of education in England and Wales. Each unit will be associated with one of the two Ministers of State—although I think that it would be fair to say that one must not expect the exact limits to be necessarily exactly the same as those of the present Departments—it may be convenient from time to time to make some adjustments in the distribution of duties between them. There will be two Permanent Under-Secretaries who will be accounting officers for the two units.

The House might be interested to know what the physical arrangements for the new Department will be. There will be a new building, now under construction, to house most of the new Department. Until then, the unit dealing with schools will be located in Curzon Street—in the present Ministry of Education—and that dealing with universities and science will be in Whitehall. The Secretary of State will have offices at both places, but it is my intention to have my main desk at Curzon Street.

The position of Scotland will be little affected. The responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Scotland are not changed by the present Motion.

There will be separate Votes, as at present, for the universities, for the various research councils and for other forms of education. The University Grants Committee will have direct access both to the new Secretary of State and to the two Ministers of State. The only other change affecting the University Grants Committee is that, as has already been announced, its organisation will be strengthened to enable it to deal with

the heavier load with which it will be faced as a result of the Robbins Report. I need hardly tell the House—although, perhaps, I should mention it—that the University Grants Committee will retain its traditional position in relation to the universities and to Whitehall, on the "buffer" principle, as it was called, recommended by the Robbins Committee.

Although the new Department will include two separate units, a number of common services will be desirable. For example, there will be common establishment, common legal and common information services, and there will be a common list of staff. I turn, therefore, from the first of the two points to the second—from the institution of the new Secretary of State and the federal organisation of his Department to the transfer of duties and functions.

The object of the transfer of duties and functions is, in effect, to reconcile the two divergent points of view that are, I think, generally agreed to have been represented in the discussion following the Robbins Report. In my submission, the arrangement at which we have arrived has given full weight to both of these points of view and, by the particular federal organisation we have adopted—which I have attempted to describe—we have avoided any risk that the new Secretary of State will be overloaded at the centre.

It will be remembered that, with one dissentient, the Robbins Committee recommended two Ministers; one of these was to have been for higher education and for the arts and sciences and the other the existing Minister of Education responsible for his existing field, less such organisations as the colleges of advanced technology and the training colleges which might either immediately or hereafter be transferred to the Minister for Arts and Sciences. The dissentient voice in the Robbins Committee recommended a single unitary Minister to be responsible for the field of higher education, for other education and for the existing responsibilities of the Ministry.

The Trend Report, which followed shortly upon the publication of the Robbins Report, seems to have envisaged a field of responsibility comparable with that of the majority of the


Robbins Committee. In the public debate that followed there seemed to me to have been established two broad propositions.

The first is that outside the world of the universities and science there was widespread, and I would have said, pretty general support for the proposal that, after taking into account the special position of Scotland, school education and higher education should come under a single Minister. That was the first result of public discussion on the Robbins Report. On the other hand, and this was the second result, inside the university world there was almost, though perhaps not quite, as much support for the majority Robbins solution as there had been outside for the minority Robbins solution. In particular, I believe that scientists were strong in their insistence that one should not attempt to separate the work of higher education from research, and in particular, the work of the universities from the Research Councils.

To carry out our programme for higher education and research and our general education policy we need the good will not of one of these two broad movements of opinion but of both of them, and the two points of view, although expressed in divergent terms, need therefore to be reconciled. Our view is that they are not irreconcilable, assuming that a structure can be devised, as we think we have devised it, which does not impose too much burden at the centre. I think that we have achieved that, although I would say to the House that its success will depend and must depend upon the extent to which effective devolution is possible.

The main criticism which has been made of these proposed arrangements is that the Secretary of State will have responsibilities greater than can be shouldered by a single Minister. In particular, I have heard the view expressed that responsibilities for science and technology should have been excluded from the new Department. I do not think that under the federal structure which I have described the new Secretary of State will be, for instance, as heavily loaded as, let us say, the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Foreign Secretary, to name only two of my colleagues.

In the fist place, he will be assisted by two Ministers of State and Parliamentary Secretaries, and in the second place he will not have the immense load of direct executive responsibilities of many of the major Departments of State. A large pact of the work for which he will be answerable will be, as it is now, in one way or another, administered indirectly—the schools, for example, through the local education authorities, the universities through the U.G.C., the Atomic Energy Authority by its Board, the Research. Councils by their respective governing bodies. This, I would say therefore, is a tolerable administrative load, and the indirect feature of the rule will combine with the federal structure to ease the burden on the Secretary of State. Moreover, the whole philosophy of the administration of these various bodies presupposes now, and will continue to do as it has always traditionally done, a very high degree of academic and administrative freedom to the various bodies who take a pride in presiding over them.

I now turn to the position of the Research Councils and the Atomic Energy Authority. All these to a greater or less extent carry on research in their own establishments and play an importtant part in university research by sponsoring and financing research projects and by giving grants for the supply of expensive equipment. The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, and the Agricultural Research Council, in particular, are also responsible for Government encouragement of research and development in industry and agriculture respectively. For this reason we believe that the Minister responsible for the Research Councils should also be responsible for the University Grants Committee and for the grant of general university funds.

There is another side of the same matter which really points in the same direction. It is not simply that the Government work in the central chain of Government laboratories needs to be tied in with the work of the universities, the colleges of technology and of the research associations. It is that the work in industry—and there is a growing amount of research and development in private industry—cannot be separated from the work in the science and


technology faculties of universities and other institutes of higher education or from that in Government laboratories and co-operative research associations.

Indeed, if I have a criticism of what happens at present, it is that this work is not sufficiently closely knit together. I should like to see, for instance—and I think that I heard the hon. Gentleman say that he, too, would like to see—visiting professors, on the continental model, attached from industry to universities and other higher educational institutions, and teachers both in those universities and institutions acting as consultants to industry.

To give another example, I should like to see the technical facilities available in Government laboratories like East Kilbride or Mill Hill available to university graduates to do work for a doctorate under appropriate university supervision. In short, I should like to see the whole chain of Government and university, industrial and co-operative laboratories in closer association with each other than they are at present. To achieve that, I believe it is necessary to have a general view of both and to tie both into technical and scientific education if the picture is to make sense.

I know that it is tempting, but I think that it is also fatal, to draw a series of hard and fast lines between different kinds of research—between, for instance, pure research and applied research—and to say that industry should deal with one and that higher education should deal with another. I believe that that distinction is quite artificial and unreal. It is easy to draw a distinction between research, on the one hand, and development, on the other, and to say that one is for the Minister of Science and the other for the Minister of Technology; or between the kind of research indulged in by the hard-headed industrialists, as I believe they are called, and the long-haired academics, as some people call them.

Of course, these differences exist up to a point. These distinctions can be drawn. But, as I was reminded the other day, I have been responsible for this field of activity for seven years, and I feel bound to tell the House that I regard those distinctions as artificial. I regard an attempt to divide laboratories into these artificial categories, to

divide them into technological educational institutes, on the one hand, and universities, on the other, is ultimately fatal to good organisation. Any attempt to do so would, in the end, drive one to ignore or to attempt to break up the absolutely indispensible central chain of Government laboratories.

Therefore, I say that it is necessary to take a general view of the whole field. The inevitable consequence of accepting a single general Ministry is to follow the advice of the Trend Committee, of the Robbins Report, of the Vice Chancellor's Committee and of many leading academics, in putting the responsibility for the Research Councils under the same ministerial set-up as is responsible for the two branches of education.

The Order embodies two principles which I ask the House to accept. Both emerge, I think, from the valuable ventilation of public opinion which followed the publication of those two Reports. The first principle is that education cannot be separated from higher education, that there is a continuous spectrum running from the primary school right up to what, I fear, is called tertiary education in the universities. This has been widely supported and seems now to be generally accepted, but, as I have said, there is a second principle no less important than the first equally at stake.

This second principle is that the handling of universities, and of new technological universities in particular, cannot be separated from the handling of research. The function of a university is not simply to teach. It is, and must be, equally to consolidate and advance the frontiers of knowledge. Part of the value of a university education to an undergraduate lies in the exposure of his mind to teachers who are doing precisely this. From this point of view, the treatment of universities must be associated with the treatment of research in other areas.

Mr. A. Woodburn: I have been very interested in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's description of complete over-lordship over all these different institutions, but I am wondering what is to happen to the Royal Aeronautical Establishments at Bedford and Farnborough,


at which a good deal of money is spent on research and development. How will he separate these from the D.S.I.R.? Will they still be under a different Minister?

Mr. Hogg: Farnborough, yes, but I think that Cranfield will not, Cranfield will, under the present arrangements, come in the U.G.C. field. I will add this to the right hon. Gentleman, however—it may be that the House will agree—that, in my view, the scope of the Order is limited to the setting up of the new Ministry and the transfer of functions to it. We shall need to look again at the reorganisation of individual Government or public establishments under it when we come to consider the Trend Report and its various recommendations. The reason for this is not merely technical. It is that for that purpose we shall require an Act of Parliament, when the occasion conies, whereas for this purpose it is sufficient to pass a Motion of this nature.
I feat that I have detained the House unduly long, but this is a matter about which, I am sure, the House would have demanded something more than a perfunctory explanation. I have tried to compress a very great deal of material into as narrow a compass as I could. In conclusion, I claim that the arrangements which we propose, which I have tried to explain, are arrangements which reconcile and embody both of the two principles which I have sought to set out and which, at the same time, provide a workable portfolio for a single Ministry organised under a single Minister in the federal manner I have described. This is the purpose behind the Order and, for the reasons I have given, I ask the House to accept it.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: The Lord President of the Council has enunciated two principles which are generally accepted and are not controversial. I want to turn to two other points which are controversial. As a matter of interest, it is noteworthy that the date on which the Order comes into effect is All Fools' Day.
There are one or two interesting facets of the Order which will determine its effectiveness. It is interesting to note that we now have three Ministers of Education who are all old Etonians. If the Govern-

ment are endeavouring to get a modern look about government, this does not contribute to it. It does not reflect the country's educational system if the Prime Minister finds that he can turn to only one school for his three Ministers of Education. It is interesting, also, to note the serious way in which the Government are treating their new attitude towards resale price maintenance, in that we now have a cut-price Cabinet Minister. This is the first time that this has happened. This, too, affects the Minister's status in the Cabinet.
To turn to the substance of the Order, in education we all pay tribute to the Government for rejecting the views of the Robbins Report and taking, as I have argued before, a decision which was essentially political and deciding that the right decision for education—this is the first of the principles enunciated by the Lord President—is to have single Ministerial responsibility for education. If we consider the question of the effectiveness of the Order, we have to bear in mind the fact that of the two battling twins who fought out this issue the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who opposed vigorously the application of this principle, has ended the day as being the single Minister responsible. This, at least, forces us to reflect again upon the likely effectiveness of the Order.
It is odd that we are now deciding upon single Ministerial responsibility, but that we are to have two voices in the Cabinet. In the recent debate on science, the right hon. and learned Gentleman made the point of there being a single points of responsibility in the Cabinet. We now lave two points of responsibility in the Cabinet. I was prepared to give this matter serious thought because I assumed that the Minister of Education would be left undisturbed in charge of his Department. That being so, there was, possibly, an arguable case that in these circumstances it might be a good thing to have at the Cabinet table a second voice representing the schools. That, however, is not what we have got.
We are to have the Lord President of the Council whose main interest will be in research and higher education, and his right hon. Friend the Minister of Education sitting together in the Cabinet, but the responsibilities of the Minister of


Education have been changed. He is no longer responsible for the schools, but is to be responsible for the universities and higher education. The universities will have two voices in the Cabinet, whereas the schools, the whole of the State system, the maintained schools and all the other sectors of education will have a still, small voice in another place.
This is a considerable change in the effective balance of political power in education. The Lord President of the Council—I do not blame him, because he has just come back to us—did not deal with the position of the House of Commons. In the House of Commons, there will be no Minister accountable for the maintained or State system.

Mr. Hogg: Nonsense.

Mr. Willey: The right hon. and learned Gentleman should not say that this is nonsense. He said that his position as Secretary of State is tenable only because we have devolution of responsibility.
I am not denying the Lord President's responsibility for policy, but the present Minister of Education is to be responsible for the universities and higher education. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be responsible for policy to this House, but a new Minister, in another place, will have an old-established Department and his own accounting officer. If that Minister is to run his Department, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not be able to reply in this House on the matters of administrative detail which are continually raised under the present system, and which will continue to be raised.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is entirely mistaken here. There is to be only one Secretary of State and he will be responsible for both the administrative units. The two Ministers of State will be associated with the two parts, but there is no question of each running a Department, because that is not so. There is nothing in what I said which justifies the hon. Gentleman in saying what he has just said. Indeed, the whole basis of what I have tried to say is to the contrary.

Mr. Willey: The right hon. and learned Gentleman must think before he intervenes. He was talking about devolution of responsibilities and of a federal structure. He spoke of autonomous institutions and, in a rather perfunctory way, about the basis of his own responsibilities.

Mr. Hogg: The autonomous institutions to which I referred were not the administrative units which we are discussing, but the universities and colleges of advanced technology, as the hon. Gentleman will see in HANSARD tomorrow. The whole basis of a federal structure is that the parts are not independent departments but are administrative units within one Department.

Mr. Willey: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman looks at HANSARD tomorrow he will see that he made a point about local authorities, devolution and a federal structure. The simple position we face in this House is that we are to have a Parliamentary Secretary answerable for the whole of the maintained system of schools, and that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, if he recognises the departmental responsibilities in the sense in which a federal structure will work, will be no more than a pillarbox.
I say emphatically that this is an affront to the State system of education. The Government are accepting Robbins with a flourish and are throwing Newsom into the wastepaper basket. It is a slap in the face for the maintained schools and the State system.
Again, what about Burnham? The Minister of Education is in a mess about that. We discussed this during the passage of the Remuneration of Teachers Act, 1963. Is he now running away from it? The right hon. Gentleman has submitted his proposals, which are not acceptable. Is he to trespass on the responsibilities of the new Minister for schools or will he continue to be so responsible for this aspect. Is he to abdicate his responsibilities and retire from the scene?
It seems extraordinary that, at this late stage of a Parliament, we should have this amazing disruption of the administration of education. I think that


the only sensible explanation is in The Times today. It said:
If, of course, the Conservatives lose the election, then Sir Alec will have ensured that he has Front Bench spokesmen of considerable parliamentary experience and skill to face a Labour Government on the increasingly important questions of university expansion and scientific development.
I think that that is rather unfair to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, because he has not been entirely happy in his return to this House. We remember him as a vigorous opponent in opposition and no doubt he will do far better on these benches. This reorganisation, therefore, appears as a temporary measure to give the right hon. and learned Gentleman a chance to widen his experience in anticipation of his being in opposition.
While the Government's approach to education is right, it is the steps they are taking to implement it that we criticise. The approach of the Government to science is wrong, however. I agree that we are not discussing the Trend Report. No doubt we shall have an opportunity when we have Government legislation implementing it. We are discussing Ministerial responsibility and issues of principle. What we have is this Gargantuan Ministry which, in spite of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's persuasive eloquence, is absolute nonsense. He can explain it only by saying that there is such devolution as to make nonsense of the purpose of the federation. The Economist dismisses it as a dreadful misunderstanding of the processes of science, and in a sense it makes nonsense of the Government's approach to education. This so overloads the right hon. and learned Gentleman's responsibilities that he will not be able effectively to deal with education.
We have had various proposals and suggestions from all sorts of quarters about higher education and science. The right hon. and learned Gentleman very properly rejected them because we could not have a division in education and the important first priority was to have education right. But no one in his right senses at any time suggested that science should go with the whole of education, not even the right hon. and learned Gentleman. What he and the Government have done by lumping the two

together is, by definition, to get both of them wrong.
The interesting thing was that when we discussed this matter earlier the right hon. and I earned Gentleman, as tonight, was on this false point of the central and single point of responsibility in the Cabinet. We have two points of responsibility in the Cabinet, but he neglected to pay attention to the fact that the Government have not implemented the Trend Report. The National Research Development Corporation stays with the Board of Trade and outside this Ministry which does not absorb the I.R.D.A., as the Trend Committee recommended.
It was at this point that the Trend Committee itself confessed that it was trespassing into policy, and it is policy which we are discussing tonight. I remind the House that the Trend Committee said:
We are conscious that this suggestion of the rôle that the Development division of the I.R.D.A. should play trespasses beyond our terms of reference into the field of policy. Nevertheless, we believe that, if industrial research and development are to receive a fresh stimulus, the Government will be compelled to play a more positive part in initiating action for this purpose.
This is a policy issue and that is what we are discussing.
It is on this cardinal issue, of which we were given notice by the Trend Committee and on which the Trend Committee, feeling itself limited by its terms of reference, still made a recommendation on which we have had no policy—what better forms are we to devise to see that the Government play a more positive, constructive and helpful part in promoting science in British industry?
The issue left with the Government was what better machinery we were to provide fir the development and exploitation of the results of science. This is the cardinal point. It is when we consider a decision to undertake large-scale development in industry following research, when we get to the development and exploitation of a discovery or an invention, that we go well beyond the spectrum about which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is so fond of talking, and it is then that entirely new factors arise.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not faced up to this. He can talk


a great deal, but he will not take action when governmental responsibility arises and calls for action. Here there are not only scientific or mainly scientific factors, but the division of priorities between different industries, economic, social and political factors.
I can give three illustrations and the first is nuclear propulsion for British shipping. For years now this problem has been bedevilled by the absence of any effective machinery to take a political decision. That is what is wrong.
I give two other examples. The development of transistors depended on the research physicists. I am told—and I accept this, as I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman does—that a great deal of the ground work of this research was done in this country, but the development was carried out in the United States. The question that we have to answer is how can we better provide for the utilisation of the results of research by British industry?
Another example is to be found in the development of computers. I read—and I have no reason to doubt this, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman can correct my information if necessary—that to lay the basic technology of advance computers would involve the expenditure of hundreds of millions of £s within a little more than a decade. This is a political decision and that is what we do not have.
To his credit, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has spoken philosophically about this on many occasions. He has distinguished between defence where the Government can act because the national interest is involved, and industry where other motives such as profit operate. We have to ensure that in a competitive world our industry reaps the benefit of research just as much as competing countries do. This is the problem which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has refused to face. This is the problem to which we want an answer. This is the problem to which the electorate will pay attention in the forthcoming General Election, because, as I have said, no one doubts the quality and the scale of British research, but everyone questions whether we get value for money from that research. They question the use that we make of

it and the speed at which the research is translated into industry.
We talk about exports. If we look at the performance of the different exporting industries, we see a vast difference between them, depending on how science-based they are. It is closing the gap that demands action from the Government, and that is what we have not had. Even in this respect the Government have adopted a negative position. They have retreated even from Trend. We have proposed a Ministry of Technology. I am sure that that is what we need, but if the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to criticise that proposal, he, as a Member of the Government, is responsible for producing an alternative.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman asked me to correct him. On the question of nuclear ships, clearly the responsibility for placing orders rests not with the Secretary of State whom we are discussing tonight, but with one of the executive Departments, presumably the Ministry of Transport. On transistors, and indeed for that matter on computers, responsibility for sponsoring the electronics industry—the hon. Gentleman is mistaken in saying that the basic work was done here because the work on semi-conductors was done in America—rests with the Ministry of Aviation. It is outside the scope of the Order that we are discussing tonight.

Mr. Willey: It is not for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to give lessons to the Chair on what is in order.

Mr. Hogg: I was not doing that. The hon. Gentleman asked me to comment. He invited me to do so, otherwise I would not have intervened.

Mr. Willey: The right hon. and learned Gentleman, for good measure, threw in a comment about the Chair, which I would have thought he would have had the grace to withdraw, but he did not.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems uncertain about where responsibility lies. What is wrong is that there is no clear governmental responsibility. There is no responsibility for the various committees which one after another inquire into


this problem. Quite clearly the problem of computer development ought to be a Cabinet matter, and, as regards transistors, I can only say that the evidence which I have is a greater tribute to British research than the right hon. and learned Gentleman is prepared to concede.
Perhaps I might summarise our complaints about the Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Government have, in principle, got education right, but in applying that principle, for personal or political reasons they have taken steps which unfortunately have led to the denigration of the State system and maintained schools.
As far as research goes, the right hon. Gentleman said nothing about the question of development. This is the cur-

rent, overriding question of the moment, and till the Government face up to this and provide a better method for translating the results of research to industry they are not facing the priority job in the field of science.
What the Government have done is to provide a two-headed Ministry. If it is to be a multi-headed Ministry it ought to have had another head, a head for development. It is a two-headed Ministry which will not do either job properly. It will be discouraging to scientists and disruptive of education. It is very disappointing that the Government should have thought fit to do this on the eve of a General Election. It can do nothing but harm, and for that reason I shall invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the Order.

10.31 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: I want to talk about one aspect in particular of the Order, and that is the Scottish aspect of it, or one part of the Scottish aspect of it. The difficulty about this situation, a situation discussed by the Robbins Committee, the overriding Ministerial responsibility for education, higher education and school education, is that a solution is found only by mounting one Minister for each part of education—trying to ride two horses. This is a natural political solution, and just what is being done. We have got two separate Ministers, one for higher education plus science, one for schools in England and Wales, each of them a Minister in the ordinary sense—I am not quite sure that I follow the right hon. Gentleman's definition of the federal principle in the Ministry—and yet each of them subordinate to an overriding Minister, a sort of overlord. This is, I think, clearly understandable practice for any politicians, trying to solve a problem like this by this sort of method.
But there is a third animal, the Scottish animal, which does not fit into the picture at all——

Mr. William Ross: It is just not there.

Mr. MacPherson: —and there is a serious difficulty, a difficulty which, I think, is minimised by the right hon. Gentleman talking of the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"]
There is a phrase one has come across before in Government pronouncements on this matter, and there is a phrase which describes that situation which does not seem to me to be at all satisfactory. I must say that the predecessors of this situation are not satisfactory either. One of the weakest possible passages in Robbins is the passage in which he discusses the connection between the Scottish Secretary of State and the higher education system. He has just a very simple suggestion: some way must be found of associating the Secretary of State for Scotland with the

universities and the U.G.C. Nothing could be vaguer. Even the right hon. Gentleman's pronouncement today was not vaguer. It was just as vague. I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman when he talks about the situation being that of no change in the Scottish Secretary of State's responsibilities. I do not believe this is true in fact, and if it were, I would not think it the best solution of the problem we have now.
Before coming to that particular aspect of it, let us look for just a moment at what is perhaps a minor aspect but one which I think deserves some attention from at least Scottish Members, but, indeed, from all Members.
The University Grants Committee will be responsible under the new set-up to one of the two Ministers of State. It will have as part of its domain the Scottish universities, including the new Scottish universities when they are established. Looking collectively after the whole group of universities, it will be responsible to one of the two Ministers of State——

Mr. Hogg: No.

Mr. MacPherson: I understand that the Secretary of State is responsible——

Mr. Hogg: The Grants Committee will be, as now, responsible to the Minister to whom the previous functions of the Treasury are transferred; that is to say, to the Secretary of State.

Mr. MacPherson: As I understand it, the Secretary of State, who will have higher education and science in his province, will be sufficiently a Minister, in a definitive sense, to have his own accounting officer at least, and it is difficult for most of us to follow the right hon. and learned Gentleman if he suggests that the responsibility will really lie with the overlord Minister. In that case, what are the Ministers of State to be responsible for? This rather changes the argument. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is to say that the U.G.C. is not responsible to the Minister of State for higher education and science but is responsible to the Minister of State for Education, very well—that rather changes my point on the relationship between the Secretary of State on the one hand and the


Minister concerned with higher education on the other.
Let us turn, however, to the question of the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland under the new system. I should like the right hon. and learned Gentleman to realise that in Scotland there will be a considerably increased number of autonomous institutes. We are just getting one, and another new one is to come—and I might say that it is being delayed almost beyond the patience of myself and most of my colleagues. Presumably, there will be others after that, made up, if one follows the probable course of events, by changes in the status of the training colleges and of colleges like the Heriot-Watt, for instance. There will be eight or ten Scottish autonomous institutions, which is a fairly considerable body of educational work and higher scientific work.
There are today only four universities in Scotland, and a fifth one building up, responsible under the old system to the Treasury, with the Secretary of State simply associated with them. It is not quite the same thing to say that, in the same way, the Secretary of State will be associated just as loosely in respect of probably twice as many institutions as now exist. Furthermore, the students who will be going through these institutions, the graduates who will be coming out of them, will represent a far bigger proportion of the Scottish people than they do now, and the interest of the Scottish people in higher education is already growing.
I do not think that they are likely to be happy with the idea that the Secretary of State is only to be vaguely connected with these higher institutions. They may have been in the past: the past system was a rather impersonal one, in which Ministerial responsibility for policy was not exercised very strongly; in which the universities were a sort of afterthought, a sort of exceptional part of the whole Treasury setup. Now, with the completely different attitude of the public, and of the Scottish public, towards higher education, and with a far greater proportion of people quite directly interested—as students, as graduates, as parents—I do not think that this situation is likely to

commend itself to the Scottish population.
I take one particular illustration of this difficulty, the training colleges and colleges of education. At present they are directly under the Secretary of State for Scotland. In whatever new developments take place one presumes that they will now be either secondary universities or, more likely, parts of universities. They will not be directly under the Secretary of State for Scotland. At the moment, I suppose, the right hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that the Secretary of State's responsibilities remain the same, but in a short time—perhaps only months—his responsibilities will not be the same.
The point is not simply to contradict the right hon. Gentleman, but to stress the point made strongly by Lord Eccles in another place in a debate earlier this Session—the necessity for the same Minister to have a strong and direct interest in, on the one hand, the training of teachers and, on the other, the staffing of the schools. This is going to present to the right hon. Gentleman very considerable difficulty. I need not go into it in detail, because the right hon. Gentleman will be familiar with what Lord Eccles said. Suppose that we get the training colleges and colleges of education—Murray House in Edinburgh combining with the Heriot-Watt Institution. That is a reasonable proposition, but one cannot say that the Secretary of State would be in the same position in respect to the training of teachers as he is now.
One cannot say that there will be the same close connection between the training of teachers and responsibility for it, on the one band, and the employment of teachers in the schools, on the other. For these reasons, I am very strongly opposed to the set-up which the right hon. Gentleman has put forward in this Order.

10.42 p.m.

Mr. James Boyden: The situation which the right hon. Gentleman has invented comes straight from "Gulliver's Travels". I have never heard of a federation in which the governor-general had two desks. I think the President of the United States works from one desk in the White House. I know of no univer-


sities where the vice-chancellor has two offices. The federation which the right hon. Gentleman has produced is a dual invention. The geographical separation of Curzon Street and Whitehall persists. There is no suggestion of a scheme to overcome it.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to common services for information and legal services, but the sort of services required are statistical services so that, particularly in estimates of scientists and scientific and mathematics teachers for grammar schools, this should bulk very large. Whereas in the case of the Ministry of Public Building and Works a political decision was taken to produce a big Department, and whereas all the work is going on there with bad planning and lots of mistakes, in this situation Robbins has forced on the Government a decision taken with no preparation at all.
Both right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench know the horrible building in Curzon Street and how inefficient it is for administration. If the Government had been working over the last three or four years for a proper orientation and administration of the educational service, they would have planned the movement of the two Departments described tonight into a new building starting afresh with proper administration and a flow of work. The same kind of haphazard organisation has been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. He says that all the implications of the Trend Report need new legislation and another look.
There are about three bites at the cherry. This first one is for electoral reasons to make the whole thing look unified. Then there is to be some reorganisation following implementation of the Trend Report. Finally, there is a physical move into a new building which may be proposed.
The whole thing is typical of the Government giving lip-service to planning but when it comes to the point utterly failing to take the proper steps and the right methods to do it. The right hon. Gentleman is in the position of an overlord with no kingdom to administer, because the kingdoms will go on in their own sweet way. If that is not so, then

the right hon. Gentleman will be overloaded, because he is taking on far too much if he is to give the decisions—and he has made no suggestion of new methods in the Civil Service of getting the information up to him so that he can give a limited number of decisions instead of ranging over the whole field.
In the other Government reorganisations which have taken place—for example, the Bill dealing with defence—much clearer thought has been given. But education rates very much lower in the minds of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite; anything is good enough for education. We have Curzon Street, another building, the overlord without thinking out the problems, no new ideas on Civil Service procedure on how to get to the right hon. Gentlemen the proper papers and the proper information for decision. It is nothing more or less than an electioneering stunt to persuade the people that the right hon. Gentleman truly believes in the unity of education. The Government have given very little evidence of this before and very little tonight.

10.47 p.m.

Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee: When I think of the number of debates about education in which the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden), many other hon. Members and I have taken part, I feel that his last comments are less than generous to the Order. There was a wide measure of agreement between both sides of the House—I am talking about the educational aspects—on the kind of structure which is embodied in the Order.
The hon. Member, for example, said tonight that over the past year my right hon. Friends ought to have been planning for something like this situation—physically planning. But if they had done so while the Robbins Committee was sitting and before it had made its recommendations, they would, in my view quite rightly, have been roundly condemned from the Opposition benches. This high-powered Committee was set up to examine this and related matters in 1960. To have prejudged its recommendations by setting up the building of the structure in my judgment would not have been realistic.

Mr. Boyden: I recall that several years ago some of my hon. Friends


and myself strongly advocated that, because of the urgency of the university situation, the Robbins Committee should be asked for an interim report. Time and again this request was refused.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I dare say. The Committee was working under considerable pressure. The hon. Member—and this applies to other hon. Members—has a considerable insight into the Committee's work.
But eventually the recommendation was made which, I think rightly in this sense, was not accepted by the House. In debate after debate on the educational side of matters both sides of the House were anxious to achieve closer association of the present educational side of our work with higher education and universities. Over and over again, particularly in our last debate, we pressed for this. When I think how easily, if Robbins' principal recommendation had been accepted, we might tonight have been debating not this Measure but a Measure by which two separate. Ministries were set up and by which a Ministry of Lower Education was set up, I am bound to say that I feel that this Order has not been received in the way that we were entitled to expect. It does no good at all to look at it in terms of personalities on one side or the other. It might be constructive for my hon. Friends and I to inquire who will be the Shadow Minister for Science.

Mr. Speaker: It might be constructive, but certainly out of order.

Mr. van Straubenzee: In which case I would not dream of asking the question, Mr. Speaker.
I have frequently been on the record as saying, and I repeat, that I believe that one of the most difficult problems facing the House from the point of view of education is the sense of status of our teachers. It is not just a case of money, important though that is, and salary structures, and that, too, is important. It is a case of the feeling of being as important as they really are to the nation. Today we are showing this great force of men and women, who are performing one of the greatest functions of the nation, that their status is of vital

importance in one all-embracing federal structure type of Ministry.
This it was more than anything else which I hoped we should safeguard, and in my short intervention, which has been provoked by the niggardly way in which the Motion has been received, I stand firmly by it and hope that all hon. Members will do the same.

10.51 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: It is traditional with Scots that they love education. Anybody who wants to see exactly how the Scottish Tories regard education and important changes concerning it need only glance at the benches opposite. There is not one Scottish Minister on the Front Bench and until a minute ago there was not even a Scottish hon. Member to be found anywhere on the benches opposite. It would have been courteous of the Secretary of State for Scotland to have waited. Perhaps after hearing his right hon. Friend dismissing Scotland in a sentence he decided that he could leave.
As with all Orders, I read them carefully. On this occasion I did not expect that we were going to receive the kind of speech we got from the Minister. To be fair to him, the content of his speech was such that it requires and is worthy of a full day's debate. Indeed, the importance of the subject should have prevented us from having to debate it at this late hour.
The right hon. Gentleman said that we would not be satisfied with a perfunctory statement. He was right. How do Scottish hon. Members feel about the treatment Scotland received in his speech and in the Prime Minister's announcement? Speech after speech tonight has made the answer clear. It is all very well to tall about the status of teachers and this grand body of men and women who are serving the nation so well, but what will the Scottish teachers get from the new set-up? The Robbins Committee and the Prime Minister have said that education must be treated as a totality, as a whole. In making his announcement on 6th February the Prime Minister said:
… the right course is to have a single Minister with total responsibility over the whole educational field, who should be Secretary of State for Education and Science.


I have read this often, but I do not see any reference to the change of responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland over to the present Secretary of State. He is to have no control over him at all. Just as well. I do not mind the right hon. Gentleman taking powers under Article 1(3) and having transferred to him Part I of Schedule 3 of the Agriculture Act, 1957. I think he deserves them. He is to be responsible for
Promoting or, with the approval of the Ministers and the Lord President of the Council, undertaking investigations and research relevant to the problems of pig production, marketing and distribution and the production, processing, manufacture, marketing and distribution of pig products.
That is now one of his new duties. This is going the whole hog. But the Prime Minister says:
with total responsibility over the whole educational field."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th February, 1963; Vol. 688, c. 1339.]
Robbins made the mistake. The Prime Minister made the mistake. We do not mind that. We do not expect the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister to do anything right. He cannot work this one out with a box of matches. If we do that and appoint a single Minister, as we now have, the question obviously arises, what about the Scottish schools? If it is important to have the follow through—I think one Scottish professor talked about from the nursery schools to research into particles and atoms—what about the Scottish schools? Are they to be left out? As the right hon. Gentleman delightfully said, "after Scotland". We cannot say "after Scotland" in this respect. Full consideration must be given to the continuity of education in Scotland, from schools to universities and to training and technical colleges as well.
Where is the Secretary of State for Scotland when we are discussing these matters? However, when we have a Prime Minister representing a Scottish constituency and a Secretary of State for Scotland both having gone to the same school, and that an English public school, one cannot wonder that they get into this muddle.
We had an interesting report from the University Grants Committee last week on its activities. It gave a very interest-

ing background of the relations between State and university. One thing is perfectly clear, and it is something that has been avoided right up to the present time. It is that there was always this concern about the position of the Scottish universities in relation to Ministers in this House. Indeed, there was concern at one time in relation to Welsh colleges as well. When the change was made in 1911, Lloyd George, who was then the Chancellor of the Exchequer, took care to ensure that the Welsh colleges did not come under the English Board of Education. But even in 1911, when eventually things were taken together and came under one Minister, that one Minister was a Treasury Minister. This was done for purely financial reasons.
If we are making a change of substance and changing the relationship between Government and State and university, then, of course, we must ask how the right hon. Gentleman can justify standing at the Box and thinking to appease the Scottish people by saying that the position of the Secretary of State for Scotland is unchanged.
We are concerned not with the Secretary of State for Scotland, but with Scottish universities and Scottish education, which is unchanged and which should not be unchanged, because the problems of the Scottish universities and Scottish schools, the needs of Scottish universities and schools to meet the needs of the nation within their respective organisations, are exactly the same as in England and Wales. To meet the need we get this treatment of education in England and Wales as one, but Scotland is left out.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is to take a certain measure of responsibility for Scottish universities. This is not a static position. There will be growth from technical college to university status, and our teacher training colleges in Scotland may give degrees—we do not know, but it is possible. As soon as that happens, they will come under the right hon. and learned Gentleman, under a system drawn up because we must get education as a whole; but the teachers he is to control will not be teaching in schools for which he has responsibility.
We start with the irrefutable fact, which may be irksome to some and which may be undesirable to certain tidy intellectuals and offensive to some rather insular Englishmen, that we have an independent system of education in Scotland which has its own background and traditions and standards. The standards and qualifications of teachers in Scotland are entirely different from and very much higher than those in England and Wales. A male teacher in Scotland must be a university graduate, except for certain subjects. How does that affect the set-up? It does not make sense and it was never intended to make sense, because the right hon. and learned Gentleman never thought of Scotland at all.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) spoke about a still small voice speaking in another place about English schools. We should have someone speaking in the Cabinet for Scotland, but it is not a still small voice—there is no voice at all. If there had been, this would never have happened. What is the logic of this position? The right hon. and learned Gentleman overloads himself with multifarious duties. It is not an overlord we have but an overloading. I am certain that the federal system will break up.
The Minister of Education is laughing. I do not know what about. He is in a very embarrassing position, for we have been told that he will not be able to answer for the administrative unit for which he is to be responsible. The only person to whom he is to be answerable is his right hon. and learned Friend, and he knows quite well that, but for the dramatic renunciation scene which the whole of Britain saw enacted at Blackpool, the right hon. and learned Gentleman might still have been in another place still denouncing this very system.
I hope that we shall have another chance to look at this and to get an explanation of the part which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is to play in respect of Scottish rights. I hope that my hon. Friends from England and Wales will forgive the roughness of the Scottish voice tonight, but we feel that although Scotland is not mentioned, it is affected.
If the right hon. Gentleman carries out his responsibilities and duties as is intended in the administration of this matter for the benefit of schools and universities. somehow or other and somewhere Scottish schools will be neglected. They did not fit in and all the Secretary of State for Scotland has been given to do, as we are told by the Prime Minister, is to have some say in appointing members to the University Grants Committee. We want more than that. We certainly do not want the activities of the present Minister of Science overspilling into Scotland.

11.6 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: I did not rise to speak earlier because unfortunately I missed the beginning of the Minister's speech, for which I apologise to him, and I thought that he might have then dealt with a matter to which I wanted to refer. But to judge from speeches made from this side of the House I understand that he did not, and therefore I should like to add to what has been said about the position in Scotland.
I believe that the general decision by the Government is right, that is to say that there should be one Minister of Education. There will be difficulties about some of the scientific institutions and so forth, but, as the Minister has said, that can be debated on a future occasion. This leaves us with the Scottish position. There is no doubt that if it is a good thing to have one Minister in charge of education in England, obviously there is a case for having one in Scotland. At the moment we are not being given that.
I fully agree with the Government that there is a difficulty here, and they may argue that Scotland is no worse off than before because there was always this division in Scottish education. Others may say that that division was between the Secretary of State, on the one hand, and ate United Kingdom Minister, on the other, whereas the proposed arrangement may give the impression of a division between a Secretary of State for Scotland and a Minister who is for education purposes primarily an English Minister. But, whether we like it or not, these changes herald a much more definite policy on education


coming from the Ministry of Education. This is inevitable.
Universities, for instance, are already greatly concerned to know the number of places which they may have to provide in different subjects in the years to come. I believe that they will require more and more guidance from the Minister about the future trend of education. The same will be true of the schools. This may mean greater influence being brought to bear on education from the Minister than has been the case hitherto. I know that the Minister and the U.G.C. have said that there is no intention to interfere with what is taught. I appreciate that, but inevitably questions will be asked and guidance sought about the general direction of education and what subjects are needed and in what quantities. If that is so, there are differences between Scottish and English education, apart from the position of teachers which was admirably dealt with by the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson), into which I do not intend to enter further.
There is also the general point of the formulation of educational policy. I should like the Government tonight to spell out at what stage in decisions on education the Secretary of State for Scotland will be consulted and where he will fit in. I do not believe that it is sufficient for him to have some say through the University Grants Committee or in appointments to that Committee. We must give further consideration to the question of the stage at which account is taken of the position of Scottish education in future developments and to how education policy will be formulated. This is a matter of concern to Scotland, and I hope that before we part with this Motion—as I say, I think that in this Order the Government are moving in the right direction—we shall have a much fuller explanation.
I regret that the Secretary of State for Scotland is not here to take part in the debate; but, no doubt, we shall have a winding-up speech from the Government Front Bench, and I hope that this point of the formulation of policy and its effect on Scotland will be dealt with more fully than it has been up till now,

11.10 p.m.

Mr. A. Woodburn: I do not intend to delay the House for long because I believe that all that can be said about the position of Scotland has already been said. I am, however, confused about how this tidiness is to be made effective.
I wish to raise the question of the College of Aeronautics and Farnborough. These places are linked, because Farnborough's education and that of the College of Aeronautics is practically one. So this tidiness at the one end will cut this in half. Farnborough, Bedford and the D.S.I.R. have wind tunnels, and presumably that is a kind of unity in science. Yet this is to be cut in half, and people are going to deal with the same thing in different departments under different Ministries.
Take the question of agriculture. We in Scotland have a College of Agriculture which needs a close connection with the Department of Agriculture. The College of Agriculture and the Department of Agriculture arrange for lecturers to go out to farmers, which is a direct connection between the College of Agriculture and the practical work of farming. The Minister is right in saying that one should not make a particular distinction between pure science and applied science. The Agricultural Council is concerned with pure science and gives grants for pure science, and it is difficult to say when pure science ceases and applied science begins, applied science being involved with the lectures to the farmers.
I do not believe we can get this nice tidy system whereby everything is in a separate compartment. The whole country is one, and the life of the universities, of the schools, of these agricultural colleges and aircraft establishments flows not only in educational circles but right into the works, at Farnborough where some of the most important scientific computer work is being carried out, and in the University at Edinburgh. It is not possible to separate the work of the university from the work of Farnborough in industry.
I should, therefore, like the Minister to give a rather clearer impression of how far all these different things will have their links with industry and with the community maintained, instead of


being cut off into compartments divorced from the life of the community. One of the criticisms of the universities is that they haw become so divorced from the community that many people in the universities do not know what is going on in the world outside. There has been criticism that a person might, by taking educational steps, become a professor or a lecturer without having any connection with the industrial life of the country on which it all depends. The blood of the one ought to flow into the other with no interruption at all.
While I do not expect the Minister to make a tidy pattern, because I think it is impossible, I hope that he will elucidate some of these problems which will arise for him and for the Government in trying to get this thing called education into a compact whole.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I add my voice to those which have already questioned the federal structure which we have had put to us this evening by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. In my view, although the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that he is responsible for all education, in practice, the Ministers administratively in charge will effectively have the responsibility. I question also the arrangement where-under the Minister administratively in charge of the schools is to be in another place and will not be a Cabinet Minister. The hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) spoke about the status of teachers. Here is a point at which we see at once that the Minister administratively in charge of education in the schools is a lesser animal than the Minister in charge of the universities.
At a time when big changes are taking place in the Burnham arrangements, at a time when the Plowden Committee has not yet reported, throughout the country there are all sorts of ideas being argued. First, there is talk about changing education at 9, others suggest changing at 10, with the argument running the whole gamut through 11, 12 and 13 up to 14. We need effective control to see that the Plowden ideas which are breaking through before the report comes out are effectively managed.
Newsom concerns me because of problems in my constituency, but I now find—I am choosing my words carefully—the new Minister who is to be responsible is not a man who, according to my researches, has made a great contribution in the educational world. I am anxious, therefore, as someone who was once a teacher, as someone who is a parent and as someone who has, to call them such, Newsom problems in his constituency.
Other problems arise out of the federal arrangement which has been put to us. I shall touch on them briefly because of the time. I take, first, further education. Further education has grown greatly in recent years. One can go to regional and area colleges which not only are doing ordinary national and higher national certificate courses but are doing extramural London University degree courses. Yet under the new arrangement, such colleges—and they vary—come under the Minister administratively in control of schools. To my knowledge, many of the area and regional colleges in recent weeks have felt themselves to be outside the pale, betwixt and between.
A problem arises for the training colleges. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) is fond of telling the story that, at the end of the war, the education Ministers went to the U.G.C. or the vice-chancellors' committee and said that we needed more teachers, and yet—whether it was the U.G.C. or the vice-chancellors' committee, I am not sure—no one was interested it this administrative point. This is still an important matter. There is a need for more teachers. How can we be sure that, when the training colleges come under the U.G.C., as I agree they should, the needs of the school system for more teachers will be sympathetically met?
I am anxious about the whole functioning of the Department concerned with schools. Like the hon. Member for Wokingham, I am concerned about the status of teachers. When one works first as a teacher in school and then in a university, one finds that the treatment is quite different. One is a completely different person, treated in a completely different way, whether for superannuation, the method of reporting


in the morning, freedom during the day, or anything else. If there were a statue outside that piece of ghastly architecture in Curzon Street, there would be two figures in it. One would be Dr. Kay-Shuttleworth reading a Poor Law report and the other would be Sir Robert Morant waving a Holmes circular. I can only hope that, when these changes come about, attention will be given to the status of teachers to bring it more into line with that of people working in other institutions.
I hope also that there will be more people concerned with making policy who understand what goes on in the State schools. I am not making a "chip on the shoulder" point here, but I believe that, far too often, the people who are making policy decisions about the State schools have never worked in them and have never sent their children to them. With the best will in the world, they miss the essential point about them. I oppose this Order because this federal structure really means that there is no essential change compared with what went before.

11.20 p.m.

Mrs. Judith Hart: I was shocked to hear the Lord President saying how little his new overlordship Ministry would be burdened by responsibility for the Research Councils and the general responsibility for fundamental research. If he is, as Secretary of State, to be so little burdened by these scientific responsibilities, what has he been doing in the last four years as Minister for Science?
What he is saying is that he has been holding only a nominal post in which he did nothing. He cannot have it both ways. Either he did nothing then or he will do everything now. The extent to which he is proposing to unify education, fundamental research and responsibility for applied research in industry is a revelation, if we needed one, of the extent to which the Tory Government propose to take effective steps to introduce science into industry. This is why the proposed new Department fails not only on education grounds but, in particular, because it shows a total lack of understanding of what is needed to revive the British economy and give British industry the slant it needs for the future.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman should take very seriously the absence from this debate of the Secretary of State for Scotland. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said, it is not true that the functions of the Secretary of State for Scotland remain unchanged under this Order. To the extent that the U.G.C. is to have access directly to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and that he, therefore, will control the universities of Scotland, then the Secretary of State for Scotland, in respect of responsibility for schools and training colleges and other institutions in Scotland, is demoted to the level of one of the Ministers under the right hon. and learned Gentleman. That position must be faced. It is not a happy one.
Scottish schools have their own traditions, and their curricula are suited to the history and traditions of Scottish education. What is to happen to that now? I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to have discussions, even now, with the Secretary of State for Scotland. If the Secretary of State for Scotland has nothing to say, then let the right hon. and learned Gentleman have discussions direct with the representatives of Scottish education. I do not believe that enough thought has been put into this by the Government. If they have thought about it, then they have come to the wrong decision and they should even now seek to rectify their mistake.

11.22 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: In the short time at my disposal I wish to single out the topic of the reactor group of the Atomic Energy Authority. Perhaps one can understand, that although one may not agree with it, that under the Secretary of State for Education and Science should come Dounreay, Risley, Harwell and perhaps Capenhurst. But imagination boggles at the thought of his being responsible for Hunterston, Bradwell, Berkeley and Chapelcross. At this late hour I will confine myself to saying that I would be curious to know about their future.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is worrying himself unduly. The great power stations are under my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power. They


do not come into this Order at all. Obviously, experimental reactors are part of the Atomic Energy Authority, but the idea that Bradwell comes under the Authority is incorrect.

11.25 p.m.

Dr. Alan Thompson: The Lord President of the Council spoke of the U.G.C. as a "buffer". I prefer the more positive approach of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees), who spoke of the need of somehow persuading and guiding the Committee to see education in totality in relation to the universities, the schools and the outside world.
I think that this idea of the University Grants Committee as a buffer is backward-looking. I understand how the question arose. It derives from the pre-war idea that the U.G.C. consisted of a small group of gentlemanly people dispensing about £2 million a year on a small number of universities—deciding, for instance, whether to build a women's hostel at this or that university college. But the U.G.C. at some future date will be spending nearly £2,000 million on higher education. Yet it is basically an instrument that was designed in the 1930s when higher education was not nearly in the same economic social and dynamic context as it is today.
I appreciate that university education involves problems of administration which are different from other sectors of education. As an ex-university teacher I know that very well, but I think that we must not get it into our heads that the U.G.C. is a buffer to protect university education from the realities of the outside world. The system has worked up to a point. I know that if the Foreign Office wants development in Arabic studies somebody from the Foreign Office meets a vice-chancellor in the Atheneum and one of the universities founds a chair. I admit that the system has not worked badly, but I do not think that that kind of rather informal gentlemanly proceeding is the right thing for the future. I do not think that if the U.G.C. is to be protected from the scrutiny of this House at the most relevant points, it will work in future.
We want a more formal definition. I am in favour of the retention of a University Development Council, as we should call it, but I think that we want some more precise idea of what it is answerable for, and to what extent it is subject to the scrutiny of the House. While the U.G.C. has many achievements to its credit, I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South made the fair point that in the past it has not been sufficiently responsive to outside influences.
We must concern ourselves not only with university administration at Ministerial level, not only with university administration at U.G.C. level, but with university administration at university level. That I is, the university governing bodies must be such, and the charters which set up new universities must be so framed, that they contain a cross-section of the community. The university governing body of Oxford consists entirely of university staff, and senior staff at that, and there are some universities with hardly any outside representatives on the councils.
These bodies spend vast sums of public money. The decisions they take affect teachers, schools, and the education system right down the line. They affect industry horizontally, and they affect every aspect of life, yet their membership is drawn from a small inward-looking group of people. These bodies must be outward looking. In this respect Scottish university administration is often superior to its English equivalent.
I regard it as part of the functions of the Minister to look at university charters to ensure that the governing bodies of these new universities are designed to meet the needs of the 1960s, and not the needs of the 1860s. Not long ago I asked a question about how university charters were framed. I was not satisfied with the reply that I received, and I hope that the Minister will look at this, because it seems to me that we should bring universities into touch with the outside world, into contact horizontally with industry, and into contact vertically with the education system beneath them. This can be done by a new approach, and I hope that the Minister will look at this.
I shall not deal with the situation in Scotland, except to ask the Minister to ensure that the governing bodies of Scottish universities are associated with the broad educational needs of Scotland, and that on the governing councils of the universities there are representatives of teachers organisations and of Scottish life. That will go a long way to ensuring that universities respond to the life about them, whether they be North or South of the Border.

11.29 p.m.

Mr. R. H. S. Crossman: I shall be very short in summing up the objections that we have to this Order.
I start by referring to the phrase used by the right hon. and learned Gentleman about this being a federal solution. If we read the Order, we see that nothing could be less federal. It represents one of the most centralised solutions that there has been, in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman takes all possible powers to himself and leaves no powers outside. I take it we must never think that this Order means what it says. What it means, though it does not say so, is that there is to be a devolution of powers to the two Ministers of State.
So we come to the objections from all Scottish Members, because they would like to know what the real meaning is, compared with the theoretical meaning in the Order, because from the point of view of Scotland all that matters is that here is something which is theoretically centralised. The right hon. Gentleman gave us an assurance it would work differently in practice. We all look forward to hearing what the old Minister of Education has to say about it, what, in his view, will be the solution of that problem.
It is true, of course, that the Prime Minister, in first telling us of the solution, told us that this was largely borrowed from the Labour Party. It is true as regards education. I have no doubt that, broadly speaking, it is the right solution, but when we come to the details there are still some questions which have not been cleared up.
The first relates to the Secretary of State's own powers, and his own Ministry. Take the comparison, which is a valid one, with the Ministry of Defence

and the three subordinate Ministries which are ceasing to be separate Ministries. The Minister of Defence has his own Permanent Secretary, his own staff; indeed, in a small sense, his own Ministry. We should like to hear whether the Secretary of State will have, distinct from the two Departments under the Ministers, a central Ministry, and, if so, what its function would be. We would conceive it to be a Ministry which would have a central planning function, and concerting common services, including establishment, information and staff.
We wonder, for example, whether the present Minister of Education's architectural and engineering unit would be a central service for the whole Ministry. We should like to hear something more, therefore, about the actual functions. Is the new Minister a Ministry on his own? Does he have a Permanent Secretary of his own, as the Minister of Defence does? If not, is he merely an overlord, with a theoretically totally centralised Department, but, in fact, looked after by two others administering it for him?
I come to the new Minister of higher education and science. He has, in the arduous duty of administering education, what the Provost of King's—I think it was—in an admirable description in the Observer the other day, described as the job "of a mangy old lion." Because, he said, after all, what does he do, this Minister of higher education? At Question Time yesterday, when I asked whether he imposed his will on the U.G.C. he simply told me, "It is not for us to do anything." Very well, He is not to impose his will. What will the Minister do then? Will he be telling us about allocations and grants in aid to the U.G.C.? We should like to know what else he will be doing. Does he do that once, and then stop? If that is his total job, I can see he deserves the slight reduction in his salary as a result of the transfer. Or will he be concentrating on the function of the application of science to industry, of which we should like to hear something tonight?
It is unfair, I think, to say that he is a "mangy old lion", as the Provost of King's called him. He is to be a frustrated young buffalo. Perhaps he will tell us what he will be doing. Since the


U.G.C. will have staff for administration, what exactly will he do now? How will he spend his arduous hours he has to consume in administering education? According to the Minister he will be absenting himself from imposing his will.
Perhaps the Minister will say something about the functions in relation to training colleges. Will they be under him? Can we have firm information? The last time, he was a little ambiguous on the subject of the Robbins recommendation on that subject, and we should like to hear something about that.
We come to the other Minister of State—the Minister of State for schools. He is in the other place; one of the Lords in Waiting, or the Lord Chamberlain, or whatever he is. When he was sitting here he did not seem an outstanding personality of the Government. I presume that the explanation of the noble Lord's selection is that he is to be the office boy upstairs while the Secretary for Education takes on himself the real, detailed administration of the schools.
Perhaps we can be told about Question Time. Is Question Time to be rearranged? Is the Secretary of State to answer all the Questions about education, all those about research and science—the whole spectrum—and a few crumbs be given to the Parliamentary Secretaries? Or will we see a more rational arrangement? We should like to hear something about the division of duties between the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the noble Lord who will be theoretically on a par with the ex-Minister of Education, administering a great Department for him.
I should like to reinforce what my hon. Friends have said about the Burnham negotiations. Are we to understand that the noble Lord will be conducting those negotiations, or will, the Secretary of State for Education and Science find the time to carry out those negotiations personally, and report on them to the House? The Order in Council is quite clear; he will do everything—but everything! Every single thing is concentrated on this one man—every power, every authority ever enjoyed by a Minister of Education, or Minister for Science or Lord President of the Council is to be in his one personal self.
Of course, we do not believe it. We know that his is just what is put in an Order in Council, and that all this will be spelt out in a practical solution. This belongs to the words in the text of an Order in Council and it has not yet been spelt out. We await with some interest the reply, end as we know that it will not be wholly satisfactory, we will vote against it.
Then there are the Research Councils—we look forward to the Secretary of State for Education and Science transferring his attention to science and Research Councils. We should like to hear something of what he will do about them. Will be appoint a civil science board? Will he create a social science research council? Will he develop the arts and humanities? We should like to hear about all these parts of his job before he comes to his main job of the application of science to industry.
I think that the Grand Panjandrum Secretary, the Pooh-Bah Secretary, was very interested in the application of science to industry. He said that it is impossible to make any difference; that the nursery school is linked to the primary school, the primary school to the senior school, the senior school to the secondary school, the secondary school to higher education, higher education to Research Councils, Research Councils to applied science, applied science to research and development, research and development to industry. One Minister must run the lot—it is impossible to separate them.
That is all right, but what about defence? What about the biggest example of research and development there is—the place in which we have spent more money than anywhere else on research and development? Why has not the Secretary of State for Education and Science mopped up the Ministry of Defence as well? It is impossible to divide them—they are closely linked; just give him time. I quite see the point. We shall then have one of these Orders in Council saying that the Prime Minister is theoretically responsible for Government, but that really the Secretary of State for Education will be running the Government for him. It will be nice to think of.
I was not quite clear about the position of the N.R.D.C. That is under the


Board of Trade—why has he not mopped up that? Is not that body applying science to industry? Is it not "the" thing set up for research and development? Why is that left to the Board of Trade? Is it because there was a powerful interest that was an obstacle too great for him to absorb it in the early stages of his Great Panjandrum career? I expect that it will be absorbed in the weeks before the election.
The last point I put to the Minister is about private industry. After all, there is a lot of research and development in private industry. Why does he not take that over as well? Courtaulds and I.C.I. have research and development. One thing we have put to him before is that there is a real problem in the application of science to private industry and the help which the Government can give to it. We believe that is a quite different job from that of teaching in infant schools or even of running research councils. The job of seeing to it that our technology—Government-financed—goes to the assistance of private industry is absolutely distinct from the work of research councils or the work of the Ministry of Education. This is why we suggested a Ministry of Industry and Technology to do that side of the work.
I imagine that the ex-Minister of education will find a little time for seeing the F.B.I. and saying, "I know that you have asked for £50 million to build up industry. In the time I can take off from Research Councils and other work, I will come to you to see that the £50 million is invested wisely." I do not think that this is a wise solution. From all we have heard we think it more sensible to say, "Yes, we should have a Minister of Education and under him two Ministers, but it would be wise to leave the control of scientific research and the control of science in industry to other Ministers who can concentrate on it.
Because he has failed to take our advice on these two particulars, and is taking it only in the narrow educational field, we have decided to vote against this Order.

11.42 p.m.

The Minister of Education (Sir Edward Boyle): The hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) ended his speech with what he called "the narrow

educational field". That seems a curious description of one of the most important reforms we have had throughout history of the educational service. We are deciding tonight for the first time that we shall have, in the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, "a single Minister with total responsibility over the whole educational field." In order to allay anxieties"—

Mr. Crossman: The word "narrow" was used in comparison with the fantastically ambitious views of the hon. Members opposite who want not only education, but all research and its application to industry, under one Panjandrum. In that position I said—in quotes—"taking it only in the narrow field of education".

Sir E. Boyle: They must have been large quotes.
I shall deal at the end of my speech with the hon. Member's comments on science, but I want to make perfectly clear to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and other Scottish hon. Members that I shall refer to Scotland in my speech, but it will take an unconscionable time if I have to refer every time to England and Wales when I am including Scotland.
I start by answering some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey). He rightly said that we are taking a political decision to have one single Secretary of State. I think that this decision will be one of major importance for the future of the education service. I want to spell out the implications of this decision for the Cabinet, the House of Commons and the working of the Department. It is quite misleading to speak, as the hon. Member spoke, of two voices in the Cabinet. My right hon. Friend will alone speak in the Cabinet as the spokesman of the education service in England and Wales. He will have the sole responsibility in Cabinet for the education service in England and Wales. It has been made perfectly plain by the Prime Minister that I am remaining in the Cabinet at his special invitation, not by virtue of the post I shall occupy.

Mr. Archie Manuel: It is a sop.

Sir E. Boyle: I go from there to the questions of Parliament and responsibility to this House.
Let me make it quite clear that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be responsible to the House for the whole range of education policy. All Questions relating to the present Ministry of Education, the present office of Minister for Science and the old responsibilities of the Treasury for paying grants on these matters should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It is, of course, entirely within the practice of the House for my right hon. Friend, if he wishes, to make arrangements as to which of his under-Ministers or Parliamentary Secretaries replies.
I also wish to emphasise the implications of these arrangements for the new Department. There is no question of each of the two Ministers of State being responsible to either House for a Department. On the contrary, both Permanent Secretaries will be responsible to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The point is that the new Department will consist of two administrative units, one of which, as my right hon. Friend said, will deal with universities and civil science and the other with schools and other education in England and Wales. Each unit will be associated with a particular Minister of State, but there will not be absolute one-for-one correspondence between the unit and the Minister of State and there may well be some subjects, for example overseas relations, which will straddle the interests of the two Ministers of State. Both Ministers of State will report to and be responsible to my right hon. Friend and they will in no sense be departmental Ministers. Each of us will be referred to as a Joint Minister of State for Education.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North referred specifically to Burnham. I hope that I have made it plain that I have no wish to shirk this issue. It was common ground in the House last year—and I must not develop this at length that—some change in machinery was needed. I have written the letter which said I would write when I answered a Question by the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White). I have, so far, had only one answer. Of course,

my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be responsible to this House for these negotiations. I have no desire to shirk the matter, and it may well be that my right hon. Friend will wish to consult me and even to some extent to bring me into these negotiations. There is no reason why he should not do so.
I cannot accept the suggestion by hon. Members opposite that the Government's arrangements are in some sense a denigration of the maintained schools. That is not true. It is rather interesting that some weeks ago when it was thought that—if I may be personal for a moment—I should be the Minister of State associated with the schools unit, exactly the opposite point was being made by critics of the Government. They said, "Clearly, the present Minister will go on doing the same work as before. He will be Minister for lower education, not in the Cabinet by virtue of his job, and the Secretary of State will interest himself primarily in the universities and in science." I believe that the arrangements which have been announced show clearly that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State intends to exercise his responsibilities equally over the whole educational field. There is no question of any denigration of the maintained schools.
I am in a rather unusual position in replying to the debate, but one advantage, surely, of my being associated with the universities and science unit is that we wish to make the federal Department as much a unity as possible, and there is something to be said for the Minister of State with a long experience of the Department going to the new unit to see how the work of that unit can be fitted in with the rest.

Mr. Ross: What about Scotland?

Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Member need not be impatient. I will deal with Scotland. He and I have debated happily before.
There are a number of aspects of the education service which straddle both units. One has been mentioned tonight by a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson)—teacher-training. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) on the


question of technical colleges. There are many subjects that will straddle both units and there is no reason why my right hon. Friend, if he wishes, should not call on the advice of either Minister of State on any departmental issue.
A number of points concerning Scotland have been raised. My right hon. Friend made it clear in his opening speech that the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Scotland are unchanged by this Motion. On the question of universities, my right hon. Friend will be responsible for the grants to Scottish universities. He will have the same responsibilities as the Treasury. I can tell the hon. Member for Kilmarnock that I recall, when I was Financial Secretary to the Treasury, answering a debate on Scottish universities. I do not remember any objection being raised to that procedure. There are a number of other aspects of Scottish education to which I wish to refer.

Mr. Ross: If it was essential to change the relationship and influence of the Government from the Treasury to a new Minister of Education, is it not wrong for the right hon. Gentleman to adduce that kind of argument simply because when he was at the Treasury there was no objection Our whole objection is that that influence has now passed to that Minister simply because he also has responsibilities for English schools. Obviously, that leaves Scottish schools completely out of the picture.

Sir E. Boyle: Believe it or not, Treasury Ministers are English Ministers, too.

Mr. Woodburn: On the question of his right hon. Friend being responsible for paying the grants, when I was Secretary of State for Scotland I used to sign for the cash to the U.G.C. for university grants. Does the new arrangement mean that the Secretary of State will still sign the cheques? How does the Secretary of State become responsible for paying the grants?

Sir E. Boyle: There is no difference in the arrangements and it may be that the Secretary of State for Scotland will actually sign the cheques. I was talking about who was responsible for the grants.
Several other aspects of Scottish education have been raised. Several hon. Members referred to the colleges of education. What I have said about the universities will apply to such institutions as and when they reach university status. If colleges of education in Scotland in future come within the responsibility of the U.G.C., then account will be taken of the Robbins recommendation that there should be a separate committee to deal with them and that the Secretary of State for Scotland should be associated with the consideration of matters affecting them. On the general subject of training colleges, I cannot make any further statement tonight simply because we have not yet heard the response of the universities to the Robbins recommendation, which directly affects them.
Several hon. Members have referred to the liaison between Scottish and English education. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) spoke on this subject. All I can say is that there is, I believe, closer liaison now on many more matters than the right hon. Gentleman realises. For example, on the question of grants, following the Anderson Report there was a joint committee of the Government on that subject. I can assure hon. Members that we have such joint committees on a number of matters, such as pensions, superannuation, the supply of teachers and others, all of which are of common interest to all concerned.

Mr. George Lawson: Does the right hon. Gentleman not appreciate that the very fact that the Secretary of State for Scotland has been absent from the Chamber for virtually the whole debate indicates that in future he will have no place or part to play in higher education? Does he not agree that this is most humiliating and damaging?

Sir E. Boyle: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Prime Minister's statement, and the Answer he specifically gave in column 1343 of HANSARD of 6th February, he will see that the position of the Secretary of State for Scotland is quite unchanged by these proposals.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Sir E. Boyle: I really must get on. We are not, with respect, in Scottish Grand


Committee now. I have answered three points put to me from hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mrs. Hart: May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Is it on a point of order?

Mrs. Hart: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. As there is no Scottish Minister present when we are discussing matters which have constitutional import for Scotland, is it not right——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Lady will know that that is not a point of order.

Sir E. Boyle: I should like to reply to three points raised by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden). He asked whether we were to have a common statistical service. The answer is that we certainy intend to do so. The statistics of the Ministry of Education have been a marked feature of our achievement in recent years and we intend to work towards a common statistical service. The hon. Gentleman said that we should have a new building, and my right hon. Friend said that a new building is under construction to house most of the new Department. Finally, the hon. Gentleman spoke about Civil Service arrangements. I would have thought that the pattern of two units with Ministers of State associated with them would facilitate Civil Service arrangements in this field, and there must be a more carefully articulated arrangement for Civil Service advice to pass up to my right hon. Friend.
Before I come to science I would like to answer the point raised by the hon. Member for Leeds, South when he spoke about the need for more people in the Ministry who understand State schools. If he will refer to an article, which I will send him, in New Society, some months ago, he will agree that

the Ministry of Education got very good marks from the writer precisely on this point. We are a Department that looks from the outside towards the inside, rather than the other way round.

On the subject of science, I would like just to say this to the hon. Member for Coventry, East. He first asked me about the architects and buildings branch of the Ministry. I very much hope that one of the advantages of one single federal Department will be, as we grow, that we shall gain from the experience of the architects and buildings branch. That is highly desirable. The hon. Gentleman then asked what, in fact, I would be doing and raised a number of objections to the Government's proposals for science, all of which were answered conclusively by my right hon. Friend on 24th February.

My right hon. Friend spoke on that occasion about the principles of concentration and diffusion in scientific policy. He said:
I do not believe that either of these two systems is wholly satisfactory. What is wanted is not a choice or a compromise between the two, but a full recognition of the separate rôle which each must play in a full and satisfactory organisation of civil science."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th February, 1964; Vol. 690, c. 66.]

The hour is late and I do not propose to detain the House for more than another moment or two. I am sorry to have detained it for so long. I would only say, in conclusion, that as far as science is concerned we stand by the principles which my right hon. Friend enunciated on that occasion. As far as education is concerned, I am sure that we are serving the interests of the whole service by the proposals which my right hon. and learned Friend has put forward tonight, and I ask the House decisively to approve them.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 155, Noes 97.

Division No. 44.]
AYES
[11.58 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Bidgood, John C.
Channon, H. P. G.


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Biggs-Davison, John
Chataway, Christopher


Allason, James
Bishop, Sir Patrick
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Black, Sir Cyril
Clarke, Brig Terence (Portsmth, W.)


Balniel, Lord
Bourne-Arton, A.
Cleaver, Leonard


Barter, John
Box, Donald
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.


Batsford, Brian
Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Curran, Charles


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Currie, G. B. H.


Berkeley, Humphry
Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Dalkeith, Earl of




Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)


Doughty, Charles
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Scott-Hopkins, James


Drayson, G. B.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Shaw, M.


du Cann, Edward
Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith
Shepherd, William


Duncan, Sir James
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Skeet, T. H. H.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Stainton, Keith


Elliott, R.W. (Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Stevens, Geoffrey


Errington, Sir Eric
Kimball, Marcus
Storey, Sir Samuel


Farr, John
Kirk, Peter
Studholme, Sir Henry


Finlay, Graeme
Lambton, Viscount
Summers, Sir Spencer


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lancaster, col. C. G.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Freeth, Denzil
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Lilley, F. J. P.
Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)


Gammans, Lady
Lindsay, Sir Martin
Teeling, Sir William


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
Litchfield, Capt. John
Temple, John M.


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Glover, Sir Douglas
Loveys, Walter H.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Gower, Raymond
Lubbock, Eric
Thorpe, Jeremy


Grant-Ferris, R.
McLaren, Martin
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Green, Alan
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy(Bute &amp; N. Ayrs)
Turner, Colin


Gresham Cooke, R.
Maddan, Martin
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
van Straubenzee W. R.


Garden, Harold
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Vane, W. M. F.


Hall John (Wycombe)
Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)
Vickers, Miss Joan


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Mawby, Ray
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Harrison Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wade, Donald


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Walder, David


Hastings, Stephen
Miscampbell, Norman
Walker, Peter


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Wall, Patrick


Hendry, Forbes
Morgan, William
Ward, Dame Irene


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Webster, David


Hirst, Geoffrey
Neave, Airey
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Partridge, E.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Hocking, Philip N.
Peel, John
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quintin
Percival, Ian
Wise, A. R.


Holland, Philip
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hollingworth, John
Pitt, Dame Edith
Woodnutt, Mark


Hooson, H. E.
Pounder, Rafton
Woollam, John


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Worsley, Marcus


Hughes-Young, Michael
Pym, Francis
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin



Iremonger, T. L.
Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ridsdale, Julian
Mr. Chichester-Clark and


Jennings, J. C.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Mr. Ian Fraser.




NOES


Ainsley, William
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Pavitt, Laurence


Albu, Austen
Hannan, William
Pentland, Norman


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Probert, Arthur


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Bennett, J (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Blackburn, F.
Holman, Percy
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W (Leics, S.W.)
Houghton, Douglas
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)


Boyden, James
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Ross, William


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Silkin, John


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Howie, W.
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Callaghan, James
Hoy, James H.
Slater Joseph (Sedgefield)


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Steele, Thomas


Cliffe, Michael
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Stonehouse, John


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Taverne, D.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lawson, George
Thornton, Ernest


Delargy, Hugh
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Wainwright, Edwin


Dempsey, James
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Warbey, William


Dodds, Norman
Loughlin, Charles
Watkins, Tudor


Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)
McBride, N.
Weitzman, David


Fernyhough, E,
MacColl, James
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Finish, Harold
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Fitch, Alan
MacPherson, Malcolm
Whitlock, William


Forman, J. C.
Manuel, Archie
Willey, Frederick


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mendelson, J. J.
Willlis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Millan, Bruce
Winterbottom, R. E.


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
Milne, Edward
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mulley, Frederick
Woof, Robert


Gourlay, Harry
Neat, Harold
Yates, victor (Ladywood)


Greenwood, Anthony
O'Malley, B. K.



Grey, Charles
Oram, A. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Ifor Davies and Mr. Redhead.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Secretary of State for Education and Science Order 1964

be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 4th March.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

WALES (REGIONAL PLAN)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

12.8 a.m.

Mr. Neil McBride: This debate takes place against a varied background of, first, Government evasion of responsibility for producing plans for Wales; secondly, a still too large total of unemployed; thirdly, the necessity of binding the Government, after 12½ years of majority rule, to produce specific proposals such as I asked on 6th February should be produced for South Wales. The failure of the Government and their unwillingness to take Wales into their confidence is morally indefensible. It is necessary and desirable that Wales should take a larger part in United Kingdom development.
The Tory Government, having been in power for 12½ years, and, in complete innocence of this being election year, brought to the notice of the Welsh Grand Committee, on 11th December last, five regional plans, two of which were for South Wales and Mid-Wales respectively in 1965. The Tories have evaded responsibility in this sense, that segmented planning for Wales would not be a success. Therefore, the allegation that I made about an election period is well-founded.
In the matter of unemployment, the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs said, on 11th December:
There is no dominating large-scale unemployment in Wales, or any dominating large-scale congestion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Welsh Grand Committee, 11th December, 1963; c. 18.]
I would draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that there are 27,527 wholly unemployed, an unemployment rate of 2·9 per cent. in Wales, as compared with 2 per cent. for the national average. Indeed, the question of young people securing employment as apprentices was clearly shown in all its difficulty when, in reply to a Question, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour yesterday said that in 1952 only 22 per cent. of boys secured apprenticeships but in 1963, after 12 years of Tory rule, it had in-

creased by only 2·6 per cent., standing at 24·6 per cent.
Every unemployed person faces severe financial hardship and a catastrophic cut in the standard of living and loss of social life and amenity. Therefore, will the Government indicate the long and short-term proposals which they have in view? Wales is a nation in its own right and is entitled to be taken into the Government's confidence. There is no reason for the Government to be coy and evasive.
The Minister for Welsh Affairs will know that plans are in hand in the North-West and Scotland, whereas the Welsh proposals are still under consideration. The non-production of such a policy is indefensible. In the integration of the economy of Wales with that of the United Kingdom as a whole, there is a necessity for the specific dovetailing of a programme for industrial development, housing, transport, communications and amenities as parts of a single comprehensive plan.
In this context, I place once again before the Minister, as I did with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 8th April last year, the problem of the rehabilitation of derelict lands and the desirability a providing a 100 per cent. grant in aid for this purpose. This matter has peen raised by other hon. Members. In may constituency there is the Llansemlet—Landore area, which perhaps I may be pardoned for mentioning again. The Government should help the great efforts which are being undertaken by the Swansea Valley Project. The Minister for Welsh Affairs should watch the land sharks and speculators when sites suddenly increase in value and should make the position as desirable as possible for industry.
On the subject of transport, I wonder whether the Minister could say what schemes there may be in hand. Reference was made yesterday to a grant of £8 million for Welsh roads. I should like to know whether any of that money will be given to Welsh local authorities to assist in improving roads which will suddenly become heavy with the traffic of articulated lorries owing to rail closures. Will he provide any of this money for remedial efforts to enable these roads to be widened to withstand the passage of these heavy


articulated lorries? This question will have to be faced in relation to rail closures and the problems which will follow.
On the question of amenity, I wonder whether the Government have any proposals for expanding tourism, particularly in North Wales, and whether the right hon. Gentleman could say when the committee will report on this matter. I understand that the committee is now meeting. We must not ignore the great benefit which holidays bring to many people. Will the Minister tell us what he intends to do about retaining essential rail services to the resorts of Wales? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is the disparity in grant given to Wales as compared with that given to Scotland for the promotion of tourism?
The Government must do something to arrest depopulation. In 1951, the population of Wales was 2,599,000. Ten years later, it was 2,641,000, an increase of only 42,000. The decline of our basic industries is a vital factor here, and we want the Government to persuade industries to move to Wales. The loss of jobs has been described as disastrous. The estimated natural increase in the population of Wales over the next 25 years is 750,000. Have the Government any proposals for bringing in industries so as to provide secure prospects of employment and real hope for the future?
One immediate effect of such action would be seen in the retention at home of our young people, and this is of particular importance in the rural areas. As I said on an earlier occasion, agriculture, forestry, fishing, the chemical industry, metal manufacturing and mining are declining. In mining, for instance, employment has fallen from 115,000 in 1948 to 75,000 today.
The Government must do more to correlate public expenditure and private expenditure. In 1961, private capital investment in Wales totalled £124 million, and in 1962 it was only £96 million. This is a matter which deserves close attention.
Another way in which the Minister could show great faith in the future would be by considering, with his right

hon. Friend, facilitating the extension of the industrial estate principle. We have an excellent industrial estate in Swansea, and I am sure that at Fforestfach every co-operation would be forthcoming for industrialists who decided to extend their interests there.
On a previous occasion, I asked how the Government proposed to apply science to industry in South Wales. They could work here in conjunction with the already large-scale developments of private industry, which must be known to the Minister. In speaking of the application of the techniques and lessons of science, I am thinking particularly of the National Engineering Laboratory, which undertakes sponsored research. Developments of this kind could be of great advantage in improving industrial processes in the great conurbations of the South Wales coastal belt. I favour Government extension of the principle of the National Engineering Laboratory undertaking sponsored industrial research.
There must be an integrated industrial plan for Wales. The days of haphazard and piecemeal planning are over. It is pointless and will be a failure. The plan for Wales should be joined to a comprehensive national plan. The battle for national economic solvency could get a great boost from the export drive of a prosperous coastal belt in South Wales and bring more trade benefits through expanding shipments from Swansea and the South Wales ports.
To suggest that a plan is not needed is to flout logic. The Welsh are a proud and adaptable people. They seek only the right to work. They want opportunities in all branches of industry. The agricultural worker, the engineering worker, the miner, the scientist, the technician and all others will be looking to the Government, who must produce plans. The Welsh people would like to see those plans before the election, so that they might consider them and vote upon them. If the Government are unable or unwilling to produce specific proposals, then they must realise that their position is untenable and make way for a Government who will recognise the situation and will produce legislation and policies which will enable Welsh men and women to live and work happily in Wales.

12.20 a.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I agree with the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. MacBride) that the absence of any plans for Wales at this stage is a serious indictment of the Governments that we have had for the last 13 years. Nevertheless, I am concerned that the plans now in train shall be good, well prepared and worth waiting for; for we have waited long enough.
I am not satisfied that the Economic Intelligence Unit at Cardiff is really large enough and sufficiently experienced for this job. If the Minister is preparing five plans for Wales and the first two are due out at the end of the year, or early next, is there sufficient staff at Cardiff in the unit to do the work?
Is there sufficient consultation between the Minister and the education and agricultural authorities, among others? Is there sufficient co-ordination? In Mid-Wales we have the enormous depopulation problem and young people are not having the technical education that they might be provided with. Is there sufficient joint consultation now, with regard to the development of the Mid-Wales plan, between the Minister of Education and the economic and agricultural authorities? I should like assurances on these aspects tonight.

12.22 a.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): I am glad to have the chance to speak about the Welsh planning process which is in train. I remember recognising, very shortly after I became Minister for Welsh Affairs, that there was scope, now that the main bulk of public investment had made such a great difference to Wales, for preparing a more detailed plan to deal with the various problems of the different parts of Wales. I take great pride in the fact that it was while I was responsible as Minister for Welsh Affairs that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) announced the setting up of a reinforced Welsh Office with what was then called the Economic Intelligence Unit, and is now called the Research and Development Unit, to prepare such a plan.
But I am not sure that hon. Members opposite, particularly the hon. Member

for Swansea, East (Mr. McBride) have any right to speak as if they had been demanding development plans for so long. I remember that, in one Welsh Grand Committee the right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards), in a very good speech, put forward the idea that the Government had in mind—the setting up of the Welsh Planning Office. But the decision has been taken and the plans are being made.
My answer to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) is that the plans are being made by an inter-departmental team served by a special research section. If the section proves inadequate in numbers, it will be reinforced, but at the moment we have every prospect of producing the entire plan for Wales and its various parts—I almost said early next year, but certainly next year.
There is no longer reason to expect that we shall produce plans for South Wales and Mid-Wales before the others. There will be one plan which will incorporate the various necessary provisions to meet the different needs of the different parts of Wales.

Mr. Hooson: Does that mean that there has been a change of plan, and that there is to be one plan as opposed to the five separate plans that we previously envisaged?

Sir K. Joseph: I think that this may stem a little from my anxiety always to stress the different problems in different parts of Wales. I may have put it wrongly. It was never intended that there should be five separate plans There was to be one plan with five separate sets of problems dealt with within it. If I misled the House, it is my fault. We always had in mind that there should be, as it were, five plans within one. Perhaps that explains it best.
I had the fear that to get on with the most urgent jobs, that is, the particularly complicated needs of South Wales where the valleys are so close to such throbbing and pulsating prosperity, and the problems of mid-Wales, it might be necessary to deal with those two areas first. But now that the section is fully at work I am advised that it can deal with all five areas and bring out a comprehensive plan during the next year—and, I hope, fairly early next year.
This plan will be largely an assessment of the prospects, demographic, economic, industrial, commercial and for transport, over the next twenty years. We cannot hope—no one can—in this rapidly changing world, to get all our predictions right. Therefore, they will be kept under constant review, and will be reassessed on a moving basis, always looking twenty years ahead.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Can the Minister say whether this plan will be published as a White Paper next year?

Sir K. Joseph: It is too early for the Government to commit themselves to the exact form in which the publication will be made. Next Thursday, as it happens, there will be published both the study of the South-East and the White Paper accompanying it. I cannot tell whether that will be the pattern for Wales. It is too early to say what the right pattern for issuing the results of our Welsh studies will be.
I was saying that we shall seek to predict all these trends forward and to draw from those trends the implications for where we need to forestall decline and where we need to cope with growing population. As hon. Members know, there is an added complication in that as industries increase and improve their productivity—as the coal mining and agriculture industries are doing at the moment—there is a need for extra work for the same number of people, and this is a healthy sign, provided that the extra work can be provided. It is that sort of implication which will be assessed and measured by the plan.
What are the instruments to deal with the things with which we wish to deal? First, there is the instrument of public investment in the public sector which, by being put in the right form in the right place at the right time, can guide and stimulate private enterprise also. It is this combined effect of the location of public investment and the stimulus this gives to private investment by which we hope, in a world which is changing intensely rapidly, to keep ahead of change. And again I stress the different problems in the different areas.
The hon. Member for Swansea, East spoke rather vehemently about unemployment. Unemployment in Wales is

between 2·9 per cent. and 3 per cent. This is above the national average, but far less above the national average than in some other sections of the country where the need to eliminate unemployment is far sharper. The picture in Wales is that there is great prosperity over substantial parts of Wales with problem areas in the valleys, in Pembrokeshire, in Mid-Wales, in parts of North Wales, and, contingently, in Anglesey. We all know of the massive public investment that is going on—the world's biggest nuclear power station at Wylfa, the new power station in West Wales, the new chemical plant, the great new steel works and the car works. We all know that South Wales now represents a modern industrial complex on the European scale. Therefore, there is no longer a blanket problem. There are a number of sharp, individual problems which have to be solved.
I was glad the hon. Gentleman spoke of a number of these problems. He referred to depopulation. This follows from the increased productivity of agriculture. It is a sad by-product of a healthy trend.

Mr. Tudor Watkins: Not altogether.

Sir K. Joseph: It is a most significant factor.
Dramatic remedies are sometimes proposed—a new town, for instance, in Mid-Wales; but this would, it seems to me, have very serious disadvantages, as it would rapidly lose the very Welshness of the area, and secondly, it would drain the surrounding towns of their remaining life. I think that we have to operate in a very delicate way here. We are looking to the Beacham Report, which is, of course, to be published—the printing is taking a very long time, I fear. The Report is being studied by the research and development section as part of its material on the Mid-Wales section of the plan.
Meanwhile, the Government have, even while I have been involved, decided on a number of new advance factories, and at any stage we are always considering where further advance factories should be put. I lay great stress myself on the self-generating power of the new industries which Wales has now got. Wales now has modern industries,


thriving industries, with dynamic management, and we are seeing Wales moving forward into a constantly more prosperous future in the areas where prosperity now is.
Our problem is a much more difficult one in the areas where there are still fairly sharp levels of unemployment, and that is why we must await the plan to deal with these difficult parts of our task. I do not believe that there is a single panacea for the remaining problems of Wales. There are a number of difficult decisions to be made, reconciling the desire of the people to stay in their familiar surroundings, preferably modernised and improved, and yet to have work which, on the whole, will need to go to areas which have a large market. We can mitigate the problem by advance factories, and these we have installed to a large number. There may need to be more.
We can also mitigate the problem by encouraging the tourist industry. I do not pretend that the tourist industry is a panacea in itself. It is not but; it is a help As I have warned people in Wales—I say it again now—unless Wales improves its services for tourism it will not hotel the tourists it now has. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) knows the almost passionate work that is going on now in the consideration of the reorganisation of the tourist industry. In answer to the hon. Member for Swansea, East, I can say that what I may call the Cole Working Party report has been submitted to the Welsh Tourist Board. We all know, with regret, that Dr. Huw T. Edwards has been ill for a while, but as soon as he is in action again I imagine that the Board will be considering that report. It is confidential at the moment, because it is a report to the Board, but I can say that Wales need have no reason to have to compare itself with any envy with Scotland when it comes to help to improve the tourist industry.
But the main work must come from the Welsh tourist industry itself, recognising the advantages of modern research to cope with the competition of modern tourist industries elsewhere, to hold, let alone to increase, the number of tourists and the income from the industry. It seems to me we owe a debt of gratitude

to the Working Party for the job which it has done.
The hon. Gentleman spoke in passing of a number of other things—let me refer briefly to several of them. He referred to the importance of roads. We recognise that Wales at present gets far more per head of population spent on roads than is spent in England. Wales is doing well in getting its share of roads, and I think that hon. Members will note with pleasure the decision that has been taken to keep open the Central Wales railway line. Decisions about railway lines are taken by my right hon. Friend only after the most meticulous study, not only of the objections made through the T.U.C.C. but of all the other interests that his departmental colleagues—particularly, of course, in the case of Wales, I myself—put to him.
I think there is only one other major point made by the hon. Gentleman and that is the most difficult point of all—the application of science to a modern economy. That cannot be done by a broad-brush treatment. It has to be done by encouraging scientific research where it is most needed. That is the job of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, under my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. As the hon. Member knows, that Department has for some years had an office in Wales. It found the going rather hard in the early years, but the present position is that the D.S.I.R. in Wales is finding more encouraging use being made of its services, and the mutual assistance scheme that links all research institutions, public and private, under the umbrella of the D.S.I.R. is being applied to Wales.
The great industries in Wales are admirable in their research. I spent last Monday going round, and seeing with admiration the British Nylon Spinners' great plant at Pontypool, and learning that there are seven "pups" of that plant being built in seven other countries, some of them as big as or even bigger than that at Pontypool. This is really a dynamic industrial area, and the hon. Gentleman does no service to Wales in painting a picture universally grey when the scene is now bright in hue over most of the map, with singularly dark spots in individual areas, where particular problems may be very difficult to solve.
The hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. T. W. Jones) and I know of the difficulty of bringing help to State industry, but I am in communication with the industry over some suggestions that have been made. We have to deal with individual problems in individual ways, and we shall continue to do this as actively as possible pending the production of the plans. We are not standing still until the plans are produced. Advance factories have been announced, further advance factories are being considered, and help given wherever it is practicable.
The great new power station at Pembroke and the great new station at Wylfa are going on and we have had the decision not to close the Central Wales railway line.
All these decisions are taken as necessary, but I hope that when the plan is produced next year it will enable us to bring even stronger weapons to bear to cure the few remaining problems that are left to be dealt with in Wales.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to One o'clock.